[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2612]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00775]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0772; FRL-9921-83-Region-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North
Carolina; Inspection and Maintenance Program Updates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of adverse comments, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the November 20, 2014, direct
final rule to approve North Carolina's January 31, 2008, May 24, 2010,
October 11, 2013, and February 11, 2014, State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submissions pertaining to changes to the North Carolina
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program. EPA will address the adverse
comments in a subsequent final action based on the parallel proposal
also published on November 20, 2014. As stated in the proposal, EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 79 FR 69051 on November 20,
2014, is withdrawn as of January 20, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta Ward, Air Planning Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 20, 2014 (79 FR 69051), EPA
published a direct final rulemaking to approve North Carolina's January
31, 2008, May 24, 2010, October 11, 2013, and February 11, 2014, SIP
submissions that pertain to changes to the North Carolina I/M program.
In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if adverse comments were
received by December 22, 2014, EPA would publish a notice in the
Federal Register withdrawing the final rule and informing the public
that the rule would not take effect. EPA received comments on December
17, 2014, and December 19, 2014. EPA interprets the comments received
on December 19, 2014 as adverse and, therefore, is withdrawing the
direct final rule. EPA will address the adverse comments in a
subsequent final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action, also
published on November 20, 2014 (79 FR 69090). As stated in the proposed
rulemaking, EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 5, 2015.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
Accordingly, the revised entries in 40 CFR 52.1770 (c) for ``Sect
.1002,'' ``Sect .1003,'' and ``Sect .1005'', the removal of the entry
for ``Sect .1004,'' and the addition of the last entry to 40 CFR
52.1770 (e) ``Non-Interference Demonstration for the North Carolina
Inspection and Maintenance Program,'' which published in the Federal
Register on November 20, 2014, at 79 FR 69051 are withdrawn as of
January 20, 2015.

[FR Doc. 2015-00775 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Date:		May 2012

Subject:	Agrium North Bend Analyses 		Nitric Acid NSPS Review       EPA Contract No. EP-D-11-084; Work Assignment No. 0-01           RTI Project No. 02103199.000.001

From:			Melissa Icenhour 							 To:			Nathan Topham         OAQPS/SPPD/MICG (D243-02)         U. S. Environmental Protection Agency       Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

As described in the memo entitled Statistical Evaluation of CEMS Data to Determine the NOX Emission Standard (Updated Memo for Final Standard, the long term CEMS data showed a maximum 30 day emission rate of 0.41 lb NOX/ton acid for the Agrium North Bend plant. These emissions were calculated based on data from Agrium that startup and shutdown events occur on average about 3 to 4 hours per month. These periods make up an extremely small fraction of total operating time (i.e. 1% or less), but commenters indicated that these periods can occur more frequently for some facilities.

Some facilities may undergo more periods of startup and shutdown compared to the facilities for which we had emissions data. Even with an increase in the number of startup and shutdown periods, these periods still make up a very small fraction of total operating time. However, the EPA has performed hypothetical calculations on the CEMS data from the Agrium North Bend plant using the assumption that the number of periods of startup and shutdown are lower than other nitric acid plants. The number of startup/shutdown periods for Agrium North Bend was compared to the highest number of startup and shutdown periods reported through the Section 114 request.

According to the information received in response to the Section 114 request, the highest number of hourly startup and shutdown periods per year was reported as 95 by the nitric acid plant in Coffeyville, Kansas.

Doubling the 67 hourly startup and shutdown periods reported by Agrium North Bend to 134 hourly startup and shutdown periods places them above the highest number of startup and shutdown periods from any of our Section 114 respondents. The resulting maximum 30 day emission rate is 0.47 lb NOX/ton acid. See Figure 1. Commenters also noted that the Agrium North Bend plant uses hydrogen peroxide injection (HPI) during the summer months. Commenters argued that HPI can be used to lower NOX emissions but HPI is not a viable option for all nitric acid plants. The EPA conducted further analyses. Hydrogen peroxide injection is only used during the summer months at the Agrium North Bend plant. Assuming that ozone season (May through September) coincides with the summer months, the analyses shows the maximum 30 operating day emission rate for the year as 0.41 lb NOX/ton acid, for the summer months as 0.40 lb NOX/ton acid and for the non-summer months as 0.39 lb NOX/ton acid. See Figure 2. The analysis of the data from the summer months is independent of the data from the non-summer months. Therefore, the first data point on the graph for summer occurs on May 30, the first 30 day period of the analysis. The data from the Agrium North Bend plant indicated that the emission limit of 0.50 lb NOX/ton acid is achievable by a modified source that is using the best system of emission reduction.

Figure 1. Agrium North Bend 30 Day Rolling NOX Emissions -- Varying the Number of Startup and Shutdown Events

Figure 2. Agrium North Bend 30 Day Rolling NOX Emissions -- Use of Hydrogen Peroxide Injection


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56678-56680]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23074]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0524; Product Identifier 2019-NM-081-AD; Amendment
39-19738; AD 2019-19-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and 747-400F series airplanes.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation that determined fatigue cracks
could develop in the underwing longerons. This AD requires repetitive
inspections of the underwing longerons and certain fuselage skins for
any crack, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 27, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 27,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0524.

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-2019-
0524; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing
Company Model 747-400 and 747-400F series airplanes. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on July 12, 2019 (84 FR 33189). The NPRM was
prompted by an evaluation that determined fatigue cracks could develop
in the underwing longerons. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive
inspections of the underwing longerons and certain fuselage skins for
any crack, and applicable on-condition actions.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracks in the underwing
longerons, which could result in fuel leakage into the pressurized
fuselage and increase the risk of a fire, and to address cracks in the
adjacent fuselage skin, which could result in rapid decompression.
Either condition could adversely affect the structural integrity of the
airplane.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comments
received. Boeing and United Airlines indicated concurrence with the
NPRM.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2900 RB,
dated April 11, 2019. This service information describes procedures for
repetitive detailed inspections and ultrasonic inspections of the
underwing longerons and the adjacent fuselage skin, and ultrasonic and
surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of certain
fuselage skins, on the left and right sides of the airplane, for any
crack, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions
include repair.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 20 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed inspections of the        2 work-hours x $85               $0  $170 per inspection  $3,400 per
 underwing longerons.               per hour = $170                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
Ultrasonic and HFEC inspections    9 work-hours x $85                0  $765 per inspection  $15,300 per
 of the adjacent fuselage skin.     per hour = $765                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
Ultrasonic inspections of the      2 work-hours x $85                0  $170 per inspection  $3,400 per
 underwing longerons.               per hour = $170                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2019-19-02 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19738; Docket No. FAA-
2019-0524; Product Identifier 2019-NM-081-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 27, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and 747-400F
series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2900 RB, dated April 11,
2019.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation that determined fatigue
cracks could develop in the underwing longerons. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address cracks in the underwing longerons, which could
result in fuel leakage into the pressurized fuselage and increase
the risk of a fire, and to address cracks in the adjacent fuselage
skin, which could result in rapid decompression. Either condition
could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2900 RB, dated April 11, 2019, do
all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
747-53A2900 RB, dated April 11, 2019.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g):  Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2900, dated April 11, 2019, which is referred to in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2900 RB, dated April 11, 2019.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2900 RB,
dated April 11, 2019, uses the phrase ``the original issue date of
Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2900 RB,'' this AD requires using ``the
effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2900 RB,
dated April 11, 2019, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions: This AD requires doing the repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Eric Lin, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2900 RB, dated
April 11, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 19, 2019.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-23074 Filed 10-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


E [C]/R Incorporated
                  Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

MEMORANDUM

DATE:		November 9, 2010

TO:		Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

FROM:	Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.

SUBJECT:	Summary of the October 26, 2010 Meeting with the Gas Compressor Association Regarding the Proposed Amendments to the SI NSPS for Stationary Engines

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

INTRODUCTION

      The Gas Compressor Association (GCA) requested this meeting with EPA to discuss the proposed amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for stationary spark ignition (SI) engines.  The proposed NSPS amendments were published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2010 (75 FR 32612).

ATTENDEES

Melanie King, EPA
John Dutton, J-W Power Company
Bob Wayland, EPA
David O'Leary, Compressor Systems Inc.
Michael Horowitz, EPA (by phone)
Mike Wasson, Exterran
John Dupree, EPA (by phone)
Kyle Jantzen, Exterran
Tanya Parise, EC/R Inc.
John Peck, Cameron Compression Systems

Levent Caglar, Compressor Systems Inc.

SUMMARY OF MEETING

	GCA had previously submitted written comments on the proposed NSPS amendments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295-0050).  GCA requested this meeting to discuss and clarify those comments, and express to EPA the challenges the natural gas compression industry would face if the NSPS amendments are finalized as proposed.  Specifically, GCA wanted to address issues related to the definition of reconstruction and the date of manufacture.  An agenda was provided by GCA, which follows this meeting summary.

EPA's Perspective

      GCA asked what prompted EPA to propose changes to the SI NSPS and what EPA's goals were with the proposed amendments.  EPA expressed that with respect to reconstruction, it intended to clarify how to conduct the reconstruction analysis and to streamline the process.  However, GCA said that the proposed changes represent a deviation from the historical interpretation of reconstruction.  GCA indicated that it has concerns with the proposed changes because they significantly impact the natural gas compression market and asked if any additional groups or other industries had expressed similar concerns.  Other groups have noted concern, but not necessarily concerns associated with any particular industry, EPA said.  It has been brought to EPA's attention that some manufacturers are acquiring old engines, stripping them down and selling them as old engines.  So EPA indicated that with the proposed amendments, it was also attempting to close this loophole where these engines should really be regulated under the NSPS, but are currently circumventing regulations.  In addition, EPA Regions and States have been confused about the reconstruction determination and asked for clarification on the NSPS regulations.  EPA added that while its intent is not to force the retirement of engines, engines do have a specific useful life and after a certain point engines that are rebuilt should not be able to avoid regulations.  EPA indicated that it is attempting to clearly define those constraints.  GCA indicated that it does not oppose EPA's objective and stressed that circumventing the regulation is not what its members do.

Technological Differences of Natural Gas Engines

      GCA discussed the importance of differentiating between lean burn and rich burn engines in terms of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions.  According to GCA, it becomes incrementally harder to control these pollutants the lower the exhaust emissions standards (in terms of grams per horsepower-hour (g/HP-hr)) get.  It is not that costly to control NOx and CO for rich burn engines, specifically in order to go from 3.0 g/HP-hr to 2.0 g/HP-hr.  However, for lean burn engines, the magnitude of emissions is set by combustion and no catalyst is available for lean burn engines to reduce NOx because the oxygen level is too high, GCA said.  The cost to go from 2.0 g/HP-hr to 1.0 g/HP-hr on a lean burn engine approaches the cost of a new engine, according to GCA.  (Beginning in model year 2011, the rule requires a 1.0 g/HP-hr NOx standard for certain new engines.)  Non-selective catalytic reduction, the applicable control technology for rich burn engines, does not approach the cost of a new engine, GCA added.  Due to the date of manufacture definition in the proposed rule, GCA indicated that it could have lean burn engines emitting 2.0 g/HP-hr of NOx that become obsolete.

      EPA asked about the viability of using selective catalytic reduction (SCR) on lean burn engines, but GCA said that SCR is typically not cost effective.  GCA said that it costs $50,000 to $60,000 per year to operate SCR.  Also, according to GCA, SCR works well for steady-state applications, but not with engines with varying load.  The injector technology associated with SCR is not able to keep up with the variable load, GCA said.  EPA explained that with the date of manufacture definition in the proposal it wanted to capture owners and operators of "new" engines where the engine should be treated as such.  GCA noted that it operates many rich burn engines, particularly smaller rich burn engines some that emit down to 0.25 g/HP-hr of NOx.  According to GCA, SCR technology is reserved as a last resort for lean burn engines and it seems that SCR is applied more in a project-like fashion.  EPA questioned why SCR is not feasible for the natural gas engines GCA members operate because the technology is relied upon for nonroad diesel engines.  GCA replied that the technology is not fully developed for the natural gas engine business.

      GCA argued that lean burn engines use less fuel and emit less greenhouse gas emissions, and if lean burn technology becomes obsolete because of the high cost to meet the NOx standard for new engines, the trend might be to go back to using rich burn engines.  GCA added that once the operator dials in on lean burn engine settings, the engine operates and emits emissions consistently, as opposed to rich burn engines that are not that sophisticated and do not have as consistent emissions.  The outcome of the regulation might be that people may not purchase lean burn engines, GCA said.  EPA emphasized that it is not promoting any particular technology or engine type.

Comments on Reconstruction Concepts

      In terms of the reconstruction process, GCA indicated that it inspects and evaluates the entire engine and tries to reuse as many components as possible.  This is the most economical approach and parts that normally wear are replaced.  EPA asked if GCA could identify the particular areas of the date of manufacture definition that could lead to triggering reconstruction.  GCA said that the crankshaft language is problematic because this component is typically removed for inspection and maintenance.  Also, the 75 percent threshold is a problem and the denominator of the cost of the facility, e.g., changing the camshaft can substantially increase the costs, but GCA indicated that this is mostly a problem on smaller engines.  GCA is concerned that lesser quality parts (e.g., parts that are not original engine manufacturer parts) may be used.  GCA also indicated that there are various overhaul "standards" basically all the way down to 0 hours, which is like a new engine.  GCA said the regulatory language, as proposed, would trigger reconstruction and a new date of manufacture for many engines.

      Also, the serial number criteria is an issue, GCA said.  The serial number could inadvertently get knocked off and GCA does not believe this should force an engine to go from 2.0 g/HP-hr to 1.0 g/HP-hr.  In terms of the crankshaft, it has to be pulled in order to access other parts for maintenance, GCA explained.  GCA added that it is important to include in the reconstruction analysis components that are necessary to run the engine, even if the components are not connected to the engine.  EPA said that it is trying to clarify that the costs are for the engine and cited to the recent boiler rule where associated components necessary for boiler operation are included in the cost assessment for reconstruction.  GCA indicated that in its analysis it only counts components that are necessary for the engine, but that might include components that are not connected to the engine.  Consequently, GCA suggested that EPA define that as a bright line, i.e., components that are necessary for the engine to operate.

      GCA asked that EPA clarify if the applicability would be retroactive and noted that most engines have a 5 year overhaul interval.  EPA said that it did not believe that anything would apply until the rule is final.  GCA also asked that EPA clarify what components could be included, e.g., the compressor obviously would not be included GCA said, but asked about components such as the cooler that is also used for other things.  GCA suggested that a percentage of the cooler cost could be included.  GCA also questioned whether the structural piece/skid could be included because it could not have an engine that is not supported; however, the skid also holds the compressor, which is not counted.  Essentially, the skid and cooler are the biggest prorate concern GCA has.  There is also the control panel, which includes the engine and compressor, but it is process related and only a minor portion of the panel is related to the engine.  There are other things that are not shared; for example, the lubrication system.  EPA indicated that it needs to discuss this with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.  GCA said that as described during this meeting, historically this is how industry has done the reconstruction analysis and that there are some standard cookie cutters numbers or engineering estimates that are consistently used.  This process may be different for diesel engines GCA said, but asked that EPA at least define that for example the cooling system is needed to operate the engine even though it is not attached to the engine.  EPA asked if GCA had any information on proration.  GCA indicated that there is a guidance document that it uses for the natural gas compression industry that it could send to EPA, but that there is also substantive information on this in the comments that GCA submitted (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295-0050).  GCA noted that the document may not be translatable to other industries.  Following the meeting, GCA submitted a reconstruction guidance document to EPA, which is available in the docket as EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295-0055.

Comments on Proposed Date of Manufacture Concept

      GCA said that it may have to take lean burn engines that currently emit between 2.0 g/HP-hr and 3.0 g/HP-hr of NOx down to 1.0 g/HP-hr and again stressed the significantly high cost per ton of achieving such reduction.  GCA said that if EPA uses the traditional definition for costs to include in the denominator it is not so much an issue, but more an issue of the components to include rather than the specific percentage.

      Regarding the serial number issue, GCA said that it is still possible to identify an engine without it, e.g., by the make and model information, maintenance records, etc.  However, there may be cases where an engine is acquired and it has no tag and GCA said it does not want to trigger a new date of manufacture based on a technicality.  When engines are bought and moved all the time records do not always stay with the engine.  EPA indicated that this is not what it is trying to get at and it is not EPA's intention to penalize owners in cases where maintenance folks may have accidentally knocked the serial number off.  In situations where there is no information on the engine, GCA asked if it could call the engine subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ.

Comments on Confusion with Other Rules

      GCA said that it noticed a gap between 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ and 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, where there is a time window of about 1 (1/2) years where it appears there are no requirements.  GCA asked if this is accurate.  EPA confirmed that this is the case.  Further, GCA asked if EPA could make the two engine regulations consistent in terms of the reconstruction assessment and argued that since the definitions were different, this is a problem.  EPA indicated that it did not intend for the reconstruction analysis to be different under the two subparts and that it will consider this issue.  The analysis under 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ and 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ should be the same, EPA said.

Closing Discussion Regarding Future Regulation

      In closing, GCA indicated that it would like to continue the dialogue with EPA and asked when the final rule would come out.  EPA indicated that it has a settlement to finalize the rule by May 22, 2011, and additionally pointed out that with the proposed notice it was not intending on officially opening up 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ.
                                    AGENDA

                       Gas Compressor Association (GCA)
                                      And
                     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
                                   10/26/10

I	Introductions
II	EPA's Perspective
III	Technological Differences of Natural Gas Engines
IV	Comments on Reconstruction Concepts
V	Comments on Proposed Date of Manufacture Concept
VI	Comments on Confusion with other Rules
VII	Closing discussion regarding future regulation


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3005-3006]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00955]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0951]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0109

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0109,
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; without change. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by
OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens

commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
February 21, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2017-0951] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email: [email protected].
    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention
Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2017-0951], and must be received by February 21,
2018.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0109.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (82 FR 49641, October 26, 2017)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Drawbridge Operation Regulations.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0109.
    Summary: The Bridge Program receives approximately 150 requests
from bridge owners or the general public per year to change the
operating schedule of various drawbridges across the navigable waters
of the United States. The information needed for the change to
operating schedule can only be obtained from the bridge owner and is
generally provided to the Coast Guard in a written format.
    Need: 33 U.S.C. 499 authorizes the Coast Guard to change the
operating schedules drawbridges that cross navigable waters of the
United States.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: The public and private owners of bridges over
navigable waters of the United States.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated annual burden remains 150 hours
a year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: January 16, 2018.
James D. Roppel,
Acting Chief, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-00955 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P