[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 119 (Thursday, June 22, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28393-28395]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12631]

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

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2017 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9391; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-129-AD;
Amendment 39-18931; AD 2017-13-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD
was prompted by a report of a crack in a certain body station (BS)
frame inboard chord during supplemental structural inspection document
(SSID) inspections. This AD requires repetitive detailed and high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for any crack at the frame
inboard chords, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 27, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 27,
2017.

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; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9391.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9391; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:
562-627-5324; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on November 18, 2016 (81 FR 81707) (``the NPRM'').
The NPRM was prompted by a report of a crack in a certain BS frame
inboard chord during SSID inspections. The NPRM proposed to require
repetitive detailed and HFEC inspections for any crack at the frame
inboard chords, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct any crack in the inboard chord of the BS 578 (737-
400 series airplanes) and BS 616 (737-300 and -500 series airplanes)
frame below stringers S-11L or S-11R, which could result in structural
failure of the frame and possible rapid decompression.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    United Airlines expressed support for the NPRM.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental
type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified
in the NPRM.
    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the NPRM as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to
this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the
ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for
airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a ``change in product''
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not
necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Request for Clarification of Location

    Boeing requested that we clarify the location of the body station
for the inspection of the frame inboard chords. Boeing pointed out that
the NPRM stated: ``in the inboard chord of the BS 616 frame.'' Boeing
also pointed out that the service information specifies that for 737-
300 and -500 airplanes the corresponding body station is BS 616, but
for 737-400 airplanes, with two overwing exit doors, the corresponding
body station is BS 578.
    We agree that clarification of the body station for the
corresponding airplane configuration is necessary. We have revised the
Discussion section of this final rule and paragraph (e) of this AD to
specify ``the inboard chord of the BS 578 (737-400 series airplanes)
and BS 616 (737-300 and -500 series airplanes) frame.''

Request for Additional AMOC Delegation Authority

    Boeing requested that we include ``Authorized Representative'' (AR)
and ``Seattle ACO'' in paragraph (j)(3) of the proposed AD.
Specifically, the commenter requested that ``Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been
authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO'' be revised to ``Authorized
Representative for the

Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO or by the Manager, Seattle ACO.'' The
commenter mentioned that AMOCs are approved by individual ARs of the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA but not all unit members of the ODA
have the authority to provide AMOC approvals to the AD. The commenter
also pointed out that Los Angeles ACO and Seattle ACO have both
authorized specific ARs to make findings.
    We disagree with including ARs and the Seattle ACO in paragraph
(j)(3) of this final rule. The Los Angeles ACO is now responsible for
the Continued Operational Safety of the affected Model 737 airplanes,
and delegates AMOC authority to the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA
based on individual ADs. As a result, AMOC delegation authority is
limited to the Manager of the Los Angeles ACO and does not include the
Manager of the Seattle ACO. Additionally, including ARs is unnecessary
because both the Los Angeles ACO and Seattle ACO authorize only
specific ARs to approve AMOCs. We have not changed this AD in this
regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1366, dated May
17, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive
detailed and HFEC inspections for cracking at certain BS frame inboard
chords, and repair. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 400 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                      Labor cost          Parts cost   Cost per  product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed and HFEC Inspections...  8 work-hours x $85 per             $0  $680 per inspection  $272,000 per
                                   hour = $680 per                        cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                   inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2017-13-01 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18931; Docket No. FAA-
2016-9391; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-129-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 27, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -
400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/EBD1CEC7B301293E86257CB30045557A?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01219se)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a crack in the body station
(BS) 616 frame inboard chord during supplemental structural
inspection document (SSID) inspections; the crack was located at the
lowest fastener hole of the inboard chord inboard strap below
stringer S-11R. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct any
crack in the inboard chord of the BS 578 (737-400 series airplanes)
and BS 616 (737-300 and -500 series airplanes) frame below stringers
S-11L or S-11R, which could result in structural failure of the
frame and possible rapid decompression.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Detailed and High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC)
Inspections

    Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, at the
applicable times specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1366, dated
May 17, 2016: Do detailed and HFEC inspections for any crack at the
frame inboard chords, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1366, dated May
17, 2016. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the time specified in
table 1 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1366, dated May 17, 2016.

(h) Repair

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, repair before further flight using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD. Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1366, dated May 17, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for
repair instructions, and specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required
for Compliance), this AD requires repair as specified in this
paragraph.

(i) Service Information Exceptions

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1366, dated May 17,
2016, specifies a compliance time ``after the original issue date of
this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) 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 Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service
information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the
provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or sub-step is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then
the RC requirement is removed from that step or sub-step. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Galib Abumeri,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5324; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1366, dated May 17,
2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Boeing 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; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 9, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12631 Filed 6-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58756-58757]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23214]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-550-000]

El Paso Natural Gas Company, LLC ; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on September 9, 2014, El Paso Natural Gas Company,
LLC (EPNG), Post Office Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944,
filed an application pursuant to sections 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act
and section 157.5 of the Commission's regulations for authorization to
abandon, by sale, a 17.4 mile segment of its 30-inch diameter Line No.
2000 located in Upton County and Crane County, Texas. EPNG is also
requesting a determination that upon closing of the sale to Kinder
Morgan Texas Pipeline, LLC, the operation and service rendered through
these facilities will be exempt from Commission jurisdiction under
Section 1(b) of the NGA. EPNG's proposal is more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory Affairs, El Paso Natural Gas
Company, L.L.C.; P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80944, or
call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or to Mark A. Minich,
Assistant General Counsel, El

Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.; P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs,
Colorado, 80944, or call<PHONE_NUMBER> or by fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: October 10, 2014.

    Dated: September 19, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23214 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43639-43640]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14636]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 13, 2023.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement
proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: July 6, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-14636 Filed 7-6-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE: 	January 30, 2015

SUBJECT:	Residential Wood Heater Cost Effectiveness Analysis

FROM:	Jill Mozier, EC/R Inc.

TO:		David Cole, EPA/OAQPS 		Gil Wood, EPA/OAQPS 		Amanda Aldridge, EPA/OAQPS

	The purpose of this memorandum is to present our cost effectiveness (CE) analyses for the PM emission reductions estimated to occur under the final New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Residential Wood Heaters. The final stepped standards and their underlying emission and cost assumptions have already been summarized in the projected emissions, manufacturer cost impacts  and unit cost memos. This memo will explain how we applied the derived cost and PM emission estimates (based on our already-documented assumptions) in our CE analyses.

   I. Application of Cost Estimates to Cost Effectiveness Analysis              A. 	NSPS-Related R&D, Certification, and Reporting & Recordkeeping Costs       As noted in our manufacturer cost impacts memo, one round of R&D is assumed  -  beginning in 2015, the rule's effective date, and ending in 2020, the year of the final Step 2 PM standard. We made assumptions regarding the number of model lines that would undergo R&D and assume the related costs. In cases where we assumed less than 100% of the models would require R&D (e.g., wood stoves, pellet stoves and hydronic heaters), this was based on the percentage of models estimated to already meet the 2020 Step 2 PM limit, as explained in both the manufacturer cost impacts memo and the projected emissions memo. It is important to note that manufacturers will likely consolidate their model lines, focusing on models able to achieve the limit, rather than incur R&D costs for every currently non-compliant model line. Therefore fewer models than we assumed in our cost estimates will likely undergo R&D, which will decrease cost impacts, potentially significantly. But since we do not have data to suggest the degree of consolidation which may occur, we assumed all non-compliant models would remain in existence and incur R&D costs, in order to avoid underestimating costs. Thus, in our CE analyses we assumed the following percentages and models would incur NSPS-related R&D costs beginning in 2015:

 74% of wood stove manufacturers (with an estimated 125 models representing catalytic, noncatalytic and hybrid designs);  30% of pellet stove manufacturers (with an estimated 125 models);  100% of single burn rate stove manufacturers (with an estimated 20 models) would face a doubling of the R&D engineering cost portion of total model development costs in 2015 and 2016 to represent intensification of R&D efforts for this previously unregulated appliance type;  100% of forced air furnace manufacturers (with an estimated 50 models) would face a doubling of the R&D engineering cost portion of total model development costs in 2015 and 2016 to represent intensification of R&D efforts for this previously unregulated appliance type; and  82% of hydronic heater manufacturers (with an estimated 120 models).              As noted in the manufacturer cost impacts memo, all manufacturers, except for wood stove manufacturers who are subject to the current 1988 NSPS (and therefore already incur certification costs), will face ongoing certification costs (every 5 years per model line) above baseline conditions. However, in the 2015 to 2020 timeframe, we have incorporated these costs as part of the overall R&D expenditures.               After 2020, our CE analysis tracks the ongoing annual certification and annual reporting and recordkeeping costs faced by manufacturers. We based reporting and recordkeeping (R&R) costs on the annual average costs derived from development of the Information Collection Request (ICR) supporting statements.[,] These are annual estimates of the ongoing R&R burden to manufacturers associated with final rule compliance.               B.	Model Design Lifespan 	For proposal, we assumed a 20-year model design lifespan. We made this assumption to best characterize the actual model design lifespan given that many models developed for the 1988 NSPS are still being sold (after 25 years), and many "new" models still have the same internal working parts with merely exterior cosmetic changes. Respectful of comments on the proposed rule, however, in which some industry representatives commented that a shorter model lifespan is more accurate, we reduced our assumed model design lifespan to 10 years for this analysis. Therefore our CE analysis tracks shipments through year 2029 (assuming a 10-year design life for a model meeting the Step 2 limit in year 2020).

   I. Application of Emission Estimates to Cost Effectiveness Analysis              A.	Baseline and NSPS emission estimates       As noted in our emissions memo, we multiplied our tons/appliance PM emission estimate by the estimated number of shipments in each year to calculate total PM emissions from each appliance category per year. We made this calculation under baseline conditions (i.e., in the absence of this final NSPS) and under the final NSPS. Furthermore, in order to not overstate emission reductions under the NSPS, baseline emissions were discounted by the estimated percentage of appliances already meeting the Step 2 PM limit (i.e., 26% of wood stoves, 70% of pellet stoves, and 18% of hydronic heaters are estimated to already meet Step 2, as noted in Section I.A).                The emission estimates assume that the total number of shipped units meet the PM standard in the year the standard is implemented. Because our PM emission estimates assume that models do not come into compliance until the year they are required to, we do not claim PM emission reductions until each compliance year. This simplifying assumption means that we underestimated how soon PM emission reductions will happen under the final NSPS. In reality, some models will meet the NSPS Step 2 PM limit prior to the 2020 compliance year and will therefore be emitting less than baseline levels prior to that year.              Further, based on available data for wood stoves and pellet stoves, we assumed that baseline PM emissions for both of these appliance types are already at the Step 1 PM level. We therefore claimed no PM emission reductions for wood stoves and pellet stoves until the 2020 Step 2 compliance year. It should furthermore be noted that the assumption that at baseline all wood stoves already meet the Step 1 (Washington State) PM standard may slightly underestimate baseline emissions, as not 100% of wood stoves currently sold do meet the Washington state PM standard. Finally, in our CE analyses PM emission reductions for forced-air furnaces are not estimated to begin until the Step 1 PM limit is required in 2016, even though the work practice/operational standard required in 2015 will result in some (un-estimated) PM emissions reduction. We made these simplifying assumptions in order to avoid any potential for overstating PM baseline emissions and PM emissions reduction under the final NSPS.              B.	Appliance Emitting Lifespan       As noted above, we used a 10-year model design lifespan for estimating costs. We also assumed a 20-year appliance emitting lifespan. This assumption was made to best characterize the actual use lifespan given that most stoves in consumer homes emit for at least 20 years and often much longer. Our CE analysis therefore tracks emission reductions out through 2048 (assuming a 20-year emitting life for an appliance shipped in year 2029).               Our CE analysis incorporates "trailing emissions" as part of our 20 year lifespan assumptions. For example, our analysis assumes that a stove shipped in 2015 will emit in homes for 20 years  -  or until 2034 (inclusive of both 2015 and 2034). We therefore drop emissions from this stove in our analysis in year 2035. Likewise, we drop emissions for a stove shipped in 2016 in year 2036, and so on.                  II. Resulting Cost Effectiveness Tables              Tables 1 through 8 show the results of our CE analyses based on PM2.5 reductions under the final NSPS for each appliance, for appliances grouped by subparts AAA ("room heaters") and QQQQ ("central heaters"), and for Subparts AAA and QQQQ combined. Each table shown is based on 2013 dollars (2010 dollars were used at proposal) and a 7% interest rate applied to the amortized costs during the 6-year R&D period.               We also prepared estimates based on a 3% interest rate and these are presented in Tables 9 through 16.               In addition, we prepared both sets of tables based on volatile organic compound (VOC) emission reductions and based on carbon monoxide (CO) emission reductions, although these pollutants do not have emission limits under the final NSPS. The VOC and CO cost effectiveness estimates are available in the docket.               Finally, we prepared a sensitivity analysis in which we varied the GDP-based forecasted growth rate, used as a proxy for growth in shipments, from 2.0% to 2.1%, 2.5% and 3.0%, which caused emission estimates and resulting cost effectiveness to vary. The CE tables associated with this sensitivity analysis are provided in Appendix A of this memo.

                  PM2.5 Cost Effectiveness Tables 1 through 8                                                                                These estimates are based on a 7% interest rate for amortized costs                     and a 2% forecasted growth in shipments

                      This page left intentionally blank

                 PM2.5 Cost Effectiveness Tables 9 through 16                                                                                These estimates are based on a 3% interest rate for amortized costs                     and a 2% forecasted growth in shipments

                                                                                This page left intentionally blank

                                  Appendix A                                                           Sensitivity Analysis: Growth in shipments                                                The following cost effectiveness (CE) tables are based on varying the forecasted growth in shipments and therefore emissions. The sensitivity analysis uses growth rates of 2.1%, 2.5% and 3.0%. A growth rate of 2.0% is used for our final emission and CE estimates described in the body of this memo. All sensitivity analysis estimates are based on a 7% interest rate for amortized costs.

 Tables A-1 through A-8 are based on a forecasted growth in shipments and emissions of 2.1%  Tables A-9 through A-16 are based on a forecasted growth in shipments and emissions of 2.5%  Tables A-17 through A-24 are based on a forecasted growth in shipments and emissions of 3.0%


Appendix F contains the following items (as separate files):

Baltimore Area: Mobile Source Emissions Technical Support Document February 2007

MOBILE6.2 Input Parameter Summary

MOBILE6.2 Sample Input Files

Rate of Further Progress Runs

Baltimore VMT and Emission Summary


Mary Ross/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 07/ 11/ 2006 11: 48 AM T o Thomas. Grahame@ HQ. DOE. GOV c c Jason Burnett/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, wilson. william@ epa. gov, Lester Grant/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Johnd Bachmann/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA S u b j e c t source apportionment studies Here are the three source apportionment workshop papers. I believe that the Hopke paper was published in the most recent issue of this journal, and that the other two are expected to be published this summer.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 198 (Friday, October 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62488-62489]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22341]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0036]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 13 individuals
for an exemption from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would
enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0036 using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/,
insert the docket number, FMCSA-2022-0036, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),''
choose the first notice listed, and click on the ``Comment'' button.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets Operations, (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0036), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2022-0036. Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-
Older),'' choose the first notice listed, click the ``Comment'' button,
and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2022-0036, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access
to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments
from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov. As described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy,
the comments are searchable by the name of the submitter.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The 13 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (Apr. 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
    On February 1, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final
Disposition titled, ``Qualification of Drivers; Application for
Exemptions; National Association of the Deaf,'' (78 FR 7479), its
decision to grant requests from 40 individuals for exemptions from the
Agency's physical qualification standard concerning hearing for
interstate CMV drivers. Since that time the Agency has published
additional notices granting requests from hard of hearing and deaf
individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualification
standard concerning hearing for interstate CMV drivers.

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Frank Darracott

    Mr. Darracott, 54, holds a class A commercial learner's permit in
Florida.

Tonnette Garza

    Ms. Garza, 44, holds a class E driver's license in Florida.

Andrew Gibson

    Mr. Gibson, 35, holds a class C driver's license in Texas.

Tyler Harmount

    Mr. Harmount, 22, holds a class C driver's license in California.

Maxwell Latin

    Mr. Latin, 31, holds a class C driver's license in Maryland.

Paradise Larizza

    Ms. Larizza, 28, holds a class C driver's license in Oregon.

Hank Moore

    Mr. Moore, 56, holds a class C driver's license in Kansas.

Mayur Motiwale

    Mr. Motiwale, 41, holds a class D driver's license in New Jersey.

Michael Reed

    Mr. Reed, 61, holds a class A commercial driver's license in
Arkansas.

Chad Smith

    Mr. Smith, 43, holds a class D driver's license in Ohio.

Justin Turner

    Mr. Turner, 23, holds a class C driver's license in Texas.

Cody Upchurch

    Mr. Upchurch, 44, holds a class C driver's license in Texas.

Thomas Williamson

    Mr. Williamson, 22, holds a class D driver's license in Illinois.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated under the DATES
section of the notice.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-22341 Filed 10-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55814-55815]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22071]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]

Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on October 30, 2014, from 8
a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building
31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002. Information regarding special accommodations due to a
disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White

Oak Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must
enter through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Kristina Toliver, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-847-
8533<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-
800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the
Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss new drug application (NDA)
206316, edoxaban tablets, submitted by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., for the
prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (blood clots other than in
the head) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (A Fib;
abnormally rapid and chaotic contractions of the atria, the upper
chambers of the heart).
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
October 16, 2014. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before October 7, 2014. Time allotted for
each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by October 8, 2014.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kristina Toliver at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: September 11, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-22071 Filed 9-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: November 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 70610-70611]
[DOCID:fr22no05-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM05-30-000]

Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards; Supplemental Notice of
Technical Conference

November 15, 2005.
    As announced in a Notice of Technical Conference issued on November
3, 2005, in the above referenced proceeding, two technical conferences
will be held in the offices of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC. All interested persons may attend, and registration is
not required. These will be staff conferences, but Commissioners may
attend.
    The first technical conference is on November 18, 2005, from 9:30
a.m. until approximately 3 p.m. Eastern Time. This conference will be
held in the Commission Meeting Room on the second floor of the
Commission's office building. Attached is the agenda for this
conference.
    A second technical conference is tentatively scheduled for Friday,
December 9, 2005. The agenda for that conference will be provided at a
later time.
    Transcripts of the conference will be immediately available from
Ace Reporting Company<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-336-6646) for a fee. They
will be available for the public on the Commission's eLibrary system
seven calendar days after the Commission receives the transcript.
    A free webcast of this event is available through http://www.ferc.gov.
 Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this

event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of

Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the webcasts. It also offers access to this event via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have
any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or contact

Danelle Perkowski or David Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to

202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.
    For more information about the conference, please contact Yvonne
Bartoli at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Sarah McKinley
at<PHONE_NUMBER> (sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov).

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.

Appendix A

Current and Possible Future Procedures for Establishment and
Approval of Electric Reliability Standards

Technical Conference Agenda, November 18, 2005, 9:30 a.m.-3 p.m.

9:30 a.m.--Opening Remarks
    Joseph T. Kelliher, FERC Chairman
9:45 a.m.--Introductions
    Joseph McClelland, Director, Division of Reliability, Office of
Markets, Tariffs, and Rates, FERC
9:50 a.m.--Panel I: Standard Setting: The Current NERC and Regional
Council Roles and Future ERO and Regional Entity Roles--Views from
NERC, Utilities, a Regional Council, and Canada
    Representatives of NERC, utilities, a regional council, and
Canada will provide their views on:
     How you respond currently to NERC and Regional Council
actions and how you plan to respond to the ERO's actions as it
establishes, implements, and enforces reliability standards.
     The challenges you might face regarding any new
process.
    Panelists:
    Rick Sergel, President-CEO, North American Electric Reliability
Council
    Michael G. Morris, Chairman-President-CEO, American Electric
Power, Inc.
    David Mohre, Executive Director, Energy and Power Division,
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
    Allen Mosher, Director of Policy Analysis, American Public Power
Association
    Sam R. Jones, Vice President-Chief Operating Officer, Electric
Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.
    Terry Boston, Executive Vice President, Power System Operations,
Tennessee Valley Authority
    Kim Warren, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Ontario IMO
11:15 a.m.--Break
11:30 a.m.--Panel II: Standard Setting: The Views of Regional
Councils on the Role of Regional Entities Under the Energy Policy
Act of 2005
    Under the EPAct of 2005, Regional Entities may propose regional
standards or variances to the ERO, which after its review can then
propose regional standards to the Commission for its approval. In
addition, the ERO may delegate its enforcement authority to Regional
Entities.
    Representatives from regional reliability councils will give
their perspectives on the following:
     What preparations are you making regarding the
implementation of EPAct 2005?
     Are there any unique circumstances in the region that
may impact the implementation of ERO standards? If so, what are
they?
     What are your views on regional standards/variances?
     What are your views on regional compliance/enforcement?
     What are your views on the terms that are necessary to
incorporate into the delegation agreements with the ERO?
     What challenges can you identify regarding delegation
agreements with the ERO?
    Panelists:
    Paul Johnson, Director, Transmission System Engineering and
Maintenance Management, American Electric Power (Representing
Reliability First)
    Edward Schwerdt, Executive Director, Northeast Power
Coordinating Council William F. Reinke, President-CEO, Southeastern
Electric Reliability Council, Inc.
    Ken Wiley, President-CEO, Florida Reliability Coordinating
Council, Inc.
    Charles Yeung, Executive Director, Interregional Affairs,
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Daniel Skaar, President, Midwest Reliability Organization
12:45 p.m.--1:30 p.m. LUNCH
1:30 p.m.--Panel III: Review of Industry Standards
    Standards are developed by many industries throughout the United
States to provide a common approach to promote best practices
throughout that industry. This panel will elicit views from several
different industry representatives and a regional council on their
standards development process within the electric industry and what
process the ERO might follow.
    Panelists will provide their views on the following questions:
     What are the processes you use to develop standards?
     What do you believe are your successes? What are your
challenges?
     How do you improve upon standards that are found to be
deficient?
     What are the lessons learned from your process that
would be useful for the Commission to utilize to assure high
reliability in the electric power system?
    Panelists:
    Rick Sergel, President-CEO, North American Electric Reliability
Council
    Richard Wakefield, Past Chairman, Energy Policy Committee,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-USA
    Richard Barrett, Office of Research, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
    Bruce Ellsworth, Chair, New York State Reliability Council
    Louise McCarren, CEO, Western Electricity Coordinating Council
2:45 p.m.--Concluding Remarks

[FR Doc. E5-6429 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is proposing the partial deletion of the Macalloy Corporation Superfund Site (the "Site") from the National Priorities List (NPL). The EPA ID for the Site is SCD003360476. The Site has a total acreage of 140 acres while the partial deletion will address 134 acres. Figure 1 shows the 140-acre Site. Figures 2-A and 2-B show the 6 acres that will remain on the NPL. A Notice of Intent to Partially Delete (NOIPD, the proposed rule-making) is expected to be published in the Federal Register in the near future. This document provides justification for the partial deletion. Other documents which provide support for the partial deletion are located in the deletion dockets in the information repositories that will be noted in the proposed rule-making.

Partial deletion from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Partial deletion from the NPL does not in any way alter the EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist the EPA's management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that partial deletion from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

Determination that the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion
The EPA has consulted with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) on this proposed partial deletion of the Macalloy Corporation Site from the NPL. For the 134 acres of the Site being considered for deletion, the EPA has determined that the response actions taken are protective of public health and the environment and, therefore, taking of additional remedial measures is not appropriate.

For the 134 acres being proposed for partial deletion from the NPL:

the implemented remedies achieve the degree of cleanup or protection specified in the 2002 Record of Decision (2002 ROD);

all selected removal and remedial action objectives and associated cleanup goals are consistent with agency policy and guidance. The proposed partial deletion meets the completion requirements as specified in OSWER Directive 9320.2-22, Close Out Procedures for National Priority List Sites; and,

all response activities are complete, with no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment remaining. Therefore, the EPA and SCDHEC have determined that no further response is necessary.

State and Agency Concurrence
EPA requested concurrence from the SCDHEC to partially delete the Site from the NPL in a letter dated May 13, 2020. SCDHEC issued a concurrence letter on May 18, 2020. The EPA's Headquarters concurred on the Notice of Intent to Partially Delete proposed rule-making, for the Macalloy Corporation Superfund Site, on (date of NOIPD concurrence memo).
Community Involvement
Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. During the development and implementation of the remedy for the Site, comment periods were offered for the proposed plan, the five-year review, and the EPA conducted public meetings. The documents that the EPA relied on for the partial deletion of 134 acres from the Macalloy Corporation Superfund Site are in the docket and are available to the public in the information repositories. A notice of availability of the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion will be published in The Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina, to satisfy public participation procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425 (e) (4).

The State of South Carolina is supportive of this partial deletion of 134 acres from the Macalloy Corporation Superfund Site.  The State signed a letter of concurrence on May 18, 2020.

Site Background and History
The Site, located at 1800 Pittsburgh Avenue in North Charleston, Charleston County, South Carolina is situated on 140 acres fronting Shipyard Creek within the Charleston Peninsula which is formed by the Ashley and Cooper Rivers. Shipyard Creek is a tributary of the Cooper River. The Site is directly adjacent to a tidal creek and marsh along Shipyard Creek. See Figure 1.

The Site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) on October 22, 1999 (64 FR 56992), then finalized on the NPL on February 4, 2000 (65 FR 5435).

Ferrochromium alloy was manufactured at the Site by the Macalloy Corporation from 1941 to 1998. The manufacturing process at the time operations ceased 1998 involved the conversion of chromium-bearing ore (chromite) to ferrochromium in a single submerged arc electric furnace. The alloy was then shipped off-site for production of high-quality stainless steel. A second furnace on the property had been out of use for several years when manufacturing ceased in 1998. During operation, smelting was conducted in both submerged and open arc furnaces. Open arc (low carbon) furnaces were operated from approximately 1946 to 1967. Submerged arc furnaces were used in subsequent years. Manufacturing and handling operations resulted in the release of hazardous substances to soil, shallow groundwater, storm water, and sediment in the tidal creek. The primary contaminant of concern was hexavalent chromium in soil and groundwater. Other environmental concerns included metals in storm water and sediment.

During its final years of operation, the plant was regulated by several federal environmental statutes, primarily the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). In 1992, the SCDHEC Bureau of Water Pollution Control issued Administrative Order 92-64-W requiring the Macalloy Corporation to remediate contaminated groundwater on the Macalloy property. Pursuant to this order, a groundwater remediation system was installed in 1994-1995 in the area of the unlined surface impoundment. In 1996, Macalloy began the RCRA corrective action process. In January 1997, pursuant to the terms of a consent order with the SCDHEC (No. 96-38-HW), Macalloy initiated off-site disposal of treated ESP dust from the unlined surface impoundment.
Macalloy also initiated a removal action in June 1998 under a CERCLA consent order with EPA to implement a surface water management system to mitigate transport of contaminants to Shipyard Creek while a final site remedy was being developed.

Under a second CERCLA consent order with EPA, Macalloy Corporation conducted a comprehensive Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) from 2000-2002. Based on the RI/FS findings, EPA issued a Record of Decision for the Site on August 21, 2002 (2002 ROD).

Shipyard Creek Associates (SCA) acquired the Site in March 2007 as a bona fide prospective purchaser.

The RI/FS, Remedial Action Objectives, Selected Remedies, Cleanup Standards, and Operation and Maintenance activities for are discussed below.

Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
In December 2000, the first phase of the RI was completed by Macalloy with oversight by EPA and SCDHEC. The primary focus of Phase I was to assess the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination on the Macalloy property and to evaluate the risk to human health and the environment from site media. The Final Phase I RI Report was approved by EPA on May 17, 2001. Several data gaps were identified in the Phase I RI that needed to be filled before an FS could begin. Therefore, a second phase of the RI was conducted in June 2001, primarily to assess risk to human and ecological receptors from potential contamination in Shipyard Creek. The Final Phase II RI Report was approved by EPA on March 21, 2002. Through the RI, it was determined that approximately 60,000 cubic yards of site soil was determined to be impacted by hexavalent chromium. Soil impacted by hexavalent chromium was observed from the ground surface to approximately 15 to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs) and determined to be concentrated in and around the Marsh Lake Fill Area, the former furnace buildings, the former concentrator area, and other isolated locations across the Site. These areas were filled with material from plant operations, including raw materials, slag, sludge, and treated and untreated dust from air pollution control equipment. An additional 55,000 cubic yards of on-site material used as berm material for surface impoundments also contained elevated concentrations of hexavalent chromium.

Approximately 110 cubic yards of soil and debris with gamma radiation levels greater than background levels were identified near the former concentrator area. The radionuclides detected were radium-226, thorium-232, potassium-40, and uranium-235. This material is believed to have been brought to the Site in railcars carrying feedstock for alloy production. The average depth of the radiological debris was determined to be 18 inches.

Five plumes of groundwater contaminated with hexavalent chromium were identified at the Site during the RI. The largest of the plumes, Plume I extended approximately from the former USI to Shipyard Creek. Hexavalent chromium concentrations of 10,000 micrograms per liter (u/L) were measured in Plume I. Plumes II, III, and IV were smaller in size and located immediately adjacent to the eastern edge of Plume I. Plume V was identified at the plant's former concentrator area. Data collected during the RI, indicated that impacted groundwater at each of the plumes was confined to the shallow aquifer and did not penetrate a clay confining layer that exists across the Site, at approximately 20 feet below ground surface.

Surface water samples associated with the Site's storm water management system exceeded the hexavalent chromium limit at several sampling locations. Other metals including arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc were identified as being a concern due to off-site discharge to Shipyard Creek.

As part of the RI/FS, a Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) was conducted to evaluate current and potential effects of contaminants to human health and the environment. Human health exposure pathways evaluated included ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact with surface soils and groundwater, and ingestion of shellfish from Shipyard Creek. The EPA based its assessment on an expected future industrial land use exposure scenario for an on-site worker. Groundwater ingestion was not determined to be a likely exposure pathway at the Site, since shallow groundwater is not currently used for consumption, nor will it likely be in the future. Nonetheless, shallow groundwater beneath the Site was conservatively assumed to be a source of drinking water because South Carolina classifies all groundwater as a potential underground source of drinking water.

Remedial Action Objectives
Based on the RI/FS findings, the 2002 ROD set forth the seven remedial action objectives (RAOs) shown below, based on future commercial/industrial land use and restoration of the groundwater for beneficial use.

Soils
      Remediate soil that leaches hexavalent chromium to groundwater and surface water at concentrations hazardous to human health and the environment; and,
      Remediate soil and debris that produce elevated levels of gamma radiation to mitigate current exposure pathways.

Storm Water/Surface Water
       Mitigate off-site hexavalent chromium discharges in storm water to Shipyard Creek through a combination of multi-media remediation measures and a comprehensive site-wide storm water management plan; and,
      Manage storm water discharges of toxic inorganic compounds in accordance with the comprehensive storm water management plan to protect ambient saltwater  quality in Shipyard Creek.

Sediment
      Mitigate the exposure of benthic organisms to contaminated sediments in the tidal creek.

Groundwater
      Prevent future Site worker exposure to unacceptable hazard levels in groundwater; and,
      Remediate shallow groundwater zones exhibiting the highest concentrations of hexavalent chromium and limit its migration to Shipyard Creek to minimize long-term threats.

In addition to achieving RAOs and mitigating all unacceptable risk to human health and
the environment, the NCP requires the attainment of all Applicable, Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) which were also listed in the 2002 ROD.

Selected Remedies
To accomplish these RAOs, the following remedial components were specified in the 2002 Record of Decision (2002 ROD):

Soil: on-site chemical reduction and stabilization/solidification via ex situ treatment with mechanical mixing;
Groundwater: enhanced in-situ chemical reduction via injection and trenching.
Radiological Material: excavation with off-site disposal;
Sediment: removal, upland disposal, installation of an engineered fabric/sand cap, and restoration of the tidal creek designated as Zone A; and monitoring of that part of Shipyard Creek which was designated as Zone C.
Surface Water/Storm Water: Comprehensive storm water management system;
Multi-media: Institutional controls and restrictive covenants to limit land use to commercial/industrial purposes, and prohibit the use of groundwater underlying the property;
Infrastructure: Decommission and demolish all site-wide buildings and infrastructure.
Cleanup Levels
The following table includes the cleanup levels established in the 2002 ROD. The EPA based its cleanup goals on an expected future industrial land use exposure scenario for an on-site worker.
Media
Chemical of Concern
Cleanup Level
Basis of Cleanup Level
Soil
Chromium (VI)
23 mg/kg
Calculated using leachability ratios and groundwater MCL
Debris
Gamma radiation
12 micro-Roentgens/hour
2 times background
Groundwater
Chromium (IV)
100 μg/L
ARAR compliance (MCL)
Sediment
Total chromium
219 to 258 mg/kg
Appendix A of 2002 ROD

Nickel
33 to 35.7 mg/kg
Appendix A of 2002 ROD

Zinc
132 to 163 mg/kg
Appendix A of 2002 ROD
Storm Water
Flow
Report
ARAR compliance (Clean Water Act)

Lead
220 μg/L
ARAR compliance (Clean Water Act, Ambient Saltwater Criteria)

Arsenic
69 μg/L
ARAR compliance (Clean Water Act, Ambient Saltwater Criteria)

Chromium (IV)
1,100 μg/L
ARAR compliance (Clean Water Act, Ambient Saltwater Criteria)

Copper
5.8 μg/L
ARAR compliance (Clean Water Act, Ambient Saltwater Criteria)

Zinc
9.5 μg/L
ARAR compliance (Clean Water Act), Ambient Saltwater Criteria)

Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity
Report
ARAR compliance (Clean Water Act)
Notes:mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram
micro-Roentgens/hour: micro-Roentgens per hour
      μg/L: micrograms per liter

Response Actions
Following the Remedial Design, a Consent Decree (CD) was negotiated with the Macalloy Potentially Responsible Parties Group (MPG) for Remedial Action (RA). The CD was entered in federal court on June 14, 2004. Under the terms of the CD, MPG initiated the RA on October 11, 2004. As described below, MPG took site-wide and comprehensive remedial action to address all the RAOs listed in the 2002 ROD. The Remedial Action Report was finalized in September 2006, while the Construction Completion (CC) target for the Site was also achieved in September 2006 when EPA finalized the Preliminary Close Out Report for the Site on September 26, 2006.

Soils
Remediate soil that leaches hexavalent chromium to groundwater and surface water at concentrations hazardous to human health and the environment.

To meet this RAO, the 2002 ROD specified a hexavalent chromium concentration in soil of 23 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The soil cleanup was achieved through on-site chemical reduction and stabilization/solidification via ex situ treatment with mechanical mixing. Approximately 194,000 cubic yards of soil over 14 acres was excavated up to 20 feet below ground surface, placed in 500 cubic yard stockpiles, mixed with 3% liquid calcium polysulfide, then placed back in the remediation zone once analysis indicated the cleanup level had been achieved. After the excavation/treatment phase was complete, six inches of clean fill was placed on the treated soil footprint. The surface soil concentrations remaining post-cleanup do not pose an unacceptable risk for future commercial/industrial use.

Remediate soil and debris that produce elevated levels of gamma radiation to
mitigate current exposure pathways.

To meet this RAO, the 2002 ROD specified a radiation level of 12 micro-Roentgens per hour (twice the site-specific background level). The soil/debris radiation RAO was achieved by excavating approximately 200 tons of material from the southwest portion of the Site and transporting it off-site for appropriate disposal.

Storm Water/Surface Water
Mitigate off-site hexavalent chromium discharges in storm water to Shipyard Creek through a combination of multi-media remediation measures and a comprehensive site-wide storm water management plan.
Manage storm water discharges of toxic inorganic compounds in accordance with the comprehensive storm water management plan to protect ambient saltwater quality in Shipyard Creek.

To meet these two RAOs, the 2002 ROD specified a remedy for storm water/surface water focused on mitigating pollutant discharge into Shipyard Creek. This was achieved by construction of a storm water management system that met the requirements of the South Carolina Storm Water Management and Sediment Reduction Act of 1991 (location-specific ARAR). The selected storm water remedy, in conjunction with the selected soil and groundwater remedies, was developed to meet hexavalent chromium cleanup goals in storm water discharges to Shipyard Creek, and to control sediment (total suspended solids) in discharge water, thereby reducing concentrations of arsenic, copper, lead, zinc and other metals in storm water discharge. Key elements included detention basins and conveyances to reduce suspended sediment concentrations; modern peak flow designs; a consolidated outfall; regraded topography; site topography designed for no runoff from off-site watersheds; and sealed underground pipe sections and migration barriers to minimize potential groundwater infiltration and preferential groundwater flow along pipes. Subsequent to the 2004-06 Remedial Action work, EPA and DHEC approved certain modifications to this storm water design as part of the construction of the Port Access Road.

Sediment
Mitigate the exposure of benthic organisms to contaminated sediments in the tidal
creek.

To meet this RAO, the 2002 ROD specified a remedy for Zone A of the tidal creek that involved excavation and capping to address sediment posing an unacceptable ecological risk due to contamination with chromium, nickel, and zinc. Implementation of the remedy in Zone A of the tidal creek included removal of up to 24 inches of sediment, upland on-site disposal of the sediment following treatment, installation of an engineered fabric/sand cap, and vegetation restoration. Long-term monitoring was required to determine effectiveness of the sediment remedy including annual monitoring for cap thickness, marsh revegetation survival monitoring, and sediment monitoring in Zone C in Shipyard Creek.
Groundwater
Prevent future Site worker exposure to unacceptable hazard levels in groundwater.
Remediate shallow groundwater zones exhibiting the highest concentrations of hexavalent chromium and limit its migration to Shipyard Creek to minimize long-term threats.

During the Remedial Investigation, the Macalloy Corporation sampled a comprehensive network of monitoring wells across the Site. A deep and a shallow aquifer exist at the Site and are separated by a continuous zone of low permeability sediment at roughly 30 feet below land surface. Samples were collected from both the deep and shallow aquifers. No exceedance of any regulatory limits was found in the deep aquifer (19 samples collected across the Site).

Chromium contamination in excess of regulatory limits was found in the shallow aquifer. Thirty-seven of 44 samples contained detectable levels of hexavalent chromium with levels ranging as high as 38,600 ug/l. Five chromium plumes were discovered. Plumes 1-4 were clustered in the northeastern portion of the Site in an area extending from the Former Lake Fill area toward Shipyard Creek and Plume 5 was near the former concentrator area. See Figure 3.

To meet the two groundwater RAOs, the 2002 ROD specified enhanced in-situ chemical reduction to reduce the concentration of hexavalent chromium in groundwater below 100 micro-grams per liter (ug/l). In addition, the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCLs) are ARARs for this Site. The MCL for total chromium, which is the combination of hexavalent and trivalent, is 100 ug/l.

The initial implementation of the groundwater remedy took place between November of 2004 and March of 2005. Treatment reagent (sodium dithionite/ferrous sulfate and sodium dithionite/potassium chloride) was injected into 203 wells aligned along a series of transects and designed to treat groundwater as it flowed across the transects. In some instances, wells were unable to accept the designed volume, but overall the effort was successful. Following this work, a series of redox trenches were constructed in December 2005 to access areas that had not been effectively addressed with the treatment reagents. Dry forms of the same chemicals were added in the same molar ratio as for the injection wells. Samples collected from the injection wells and redox trenches over the next year showed excellent treatment effectiveness. Following the in- situ treatment, a network of 20 permanent monitoring wells were established to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy. This network focused on the five plumes delineated in the RI/FS. Samples were collected quarterly for the first year, then annually for the next five years. After one year of post-treatment monitoring, only seven of the 40 monitoring well locations had total chromium concentrations above 100 ug/l and all of these were in one plume (Plume #1), which is centered on MW041 and MW043.

In 2008, a supplemental action was implemented to better define the boundaries of the remaining plume and re-treat areas where necessary. This action involved installation of three new permanent monitoring wells (MW060, MW061, and MW062) and installation of seven temporary monitoring wells. Four of these temporary monitoring wells defined the western boundary of the plume which extended from MW047 to MW060. See Figure 4. In December of 2008, MPG installed four additional redox trenches with a total of 350 linear feet of trench. These redox trenches were oriented perpendicular to the groundwater flow direction and
intercepted the contaminated groundwater. Following the completion of this supplemental action, semi-annual sampling of the monitoring network resumed.

Beginning in 2016, additional work was performed at the Site. This work included the replacement of MW061 and installation of additional temporary wells (IW09-01 to IW-0910) to better define the northern boundary of the plume. The results of this investigation confirmed the continued presence of a chromium plume (mostly trivalent) in the area of MW041, MW043, MW047, MW060, MW061, IW09-04, and IW09-06. Based on this work, a supplemental injection action was implemented in 2017. The goal of this action was to establish reducing conditions in the aquifer around MW043 and IW09-06 where significant concentrations of hexavalent chromium remained. At MW043, reducing agent calcium polysulfide (CPS) was injected at 28 points within the 5,000 square foot treatment area. At IW-09-06, two rounds of CPS injections in March and June resulted in 53 injection points over an 8,100 square foot treatment area.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
As documented in the 2010 and 2015 Five Year Review Reports, O&M activities have continued at the Site after the construction activities were completed.

Long-term monitoring was required to determine effectiveness of the sediment remedy in Zone A of the tidal creek, including annual monitoring for cap thickness, marsh revegetation survival monitoring in Zone A of the tidal creek, in addition to sediment monitoring in Zone C in Shipyard Creek. Cap thickness measurements were collected annually at 100-foot intervals along the centerline of the tidal creek. Measurements were collected by manually pushing a rod through the sand cap to the underlying geotextile barrier. The results were presented in annual monitoring reports until the first Five Year Review was performed in 2010. There have been no costs associated with Operation & Maintenance over the last five years. Any future costs will pertain to groundwater monitoring of the 6-acre area of the Site that will remain on the NPL, and where the groundwater cleanup goal has not been met for total chromium.

Institutional controls are in place for the Site, with restrictive covenants in place that limit future use to commercial/industrial purposes and prohibit the use of groundwater underlying the property. These covenants were finalized in May 2006 and have been officially recorded with the Charleston County Register of Deeds.

Five-Year Review
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the National Contingency Plan, statutory Five-Year Reviews will be conducted at the Site until the groundwater cleanup goal for total chromium has been met in the 6-acre area of the Site that will remain on the NPL. The EPA plans to complete the Third Five-Year Review for the Site before September 16, 2020.