[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 171 (Thursday, September 4, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52585-52588]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21055]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 2014 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0620; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-238-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-22-
10, for all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-
500, and A340-600 series airplanes. AD 2007-22-10 currently requires
repetitive inspections of the left-hand and right-hand wing main
landing gear (MLG) rib 6 aft bearing lugs (forward and aft) to detect
any cracking, and replacement if necessary. Since we issued AD 2007-22-
10, we have received reports of additional cracking of the MLG rib 6
aft bearing forward lug. This proposed AD would expand the
applicability and reduce certain compliance times. We are proposing
this AD to detect and correct cracking of the MLG rib 6 aft bearing
lugs, which could result in collapse of the MLG upon landing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 20,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

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-2014-
0620; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0620;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-238-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On October 24, 2007, we issued AD 2007-22-10, Amendment 39-15246
(72 FR 61796, November 1, 2007. (A correction of that AD was published
in the Federal Register on November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64532).) AD 2007-
22-10 superseded AD 2007-03-04, Amendment 39-14915 (72 FR 4416, January
31, 2007). AD 2007-22-10 requires actions intended to address an unsafe
condition on all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300,
A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes.
    Since we issued AD 2007-22-10, Amendment 39-15246 (72 FR 61796,
November 1, 2007; corrected November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64532)), we have
received reports of additional cracking of the MLG rib 6 aft bearing
forward lug on several other Model A330 and A340 airplanes. Based on
the safety analysis performed by the manufacturer, this proposed AD
would expand the applicability and reduce certain compliance times.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0271, dated November 14, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    During Main Landing Gear (MLG) lubrication, a crack was visually
found in the MLG rib 6 aft bearing forward lug on one A330 in-
service aeroplane. The crack had extended through the entire
thickness of the forward lug at approximately the 4 o'clock position
(when looking forward). It has been determined that similar type of
crack can develop on other aeroplane types that are listed in the
Applicability paragraph.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the MLG attachment.
    To address this situation, Airbus issued inspection Service
Bulletins (SB) A330-57-3096, A340-57-4104 and A340-57-5009 to
instruct repetitive inspection [for cracking] of the gear rib lugs.
    Prompted by these findings, EASA issued Emergency AD 2006-0364-E
[http://

ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2006-0364-E] to require repetitive detailed
visual inspections of the Left Hand (LH) and Right Hand (RH) wing
MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs [and replacement if necessary]. Later
EASA issued AD 2007-0247R1-E [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-22-
10, Amendment 39-15246 (72 FR 61796, November 1, 2007)], which
superseded EAD 2006-0364-E, to:

--Expand the applicability to all A330 and A340 aeroplanes, because
the interference fit bushes cannot be considered as a terminating
action, owing to unknown root cause; and
--Add a second parameter quoted in Flight Hours (FH) to the
inspection interval in order to reflect the aeroplane utilization in
service.

    EASA AD 2007-0247R1-E was republished to correct a typographical
error.
    Since the first crack finding and issuance of the inspection SBs
and related ADs, six further cracks have been reported.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD, which
supersedes EASA EAD 2007-0247 R1-E and retains its requirements, is
issued to expand the applicability to the newly certified models
A330-223F and A330-243F and to reduce the threshold further to the
risk assessment of recent in-service experience.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2014-0620.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued the following service bulletins.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 05, dated
October 17, 2013.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4104, Revision 04, dated
October 17, 2013.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-5009, Revision 03, dated
October 17, 2013.
    The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This Proposed AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR
78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs
that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition,
by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design
Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This
change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide
operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically
developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we
proposed to change the phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a
design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design
organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH
authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
    One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) stated the following: ``The
proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method
approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or
Airbus's EASA DOA.
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``design approval holder (DAH) with State of
Design Authority design organization approval,'' but instead we have
provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of
Design Authority for the DAH throughout this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 81 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $13,770, or $170 per product.
    We have no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost
estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 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

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    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.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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. Amend Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-22-
10, Amendment 39-15246 (72 FR 61796, November 1, 2007; corrected
November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64532)), and adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2014-0620; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-
238-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 20, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2007-22-10, Amendment 39-15246 (72 FR 61796,
November 1, 2007; corrected November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64532)).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -
223F, -243, -243F -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-211, -212, -213 -311, -312, -313,
-541, and -642 airplanes; certificated in any category; all
manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the main landing
gear (MLG) rib 6 aft bearing forward lug. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracking of the MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs, which
could result in collapse of the MLG upon landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections

    Before the accumulation of 42 months since the airplane's first
flight or since the last MLG support rib replacement, as applicable;
or within 4 months after the effective date of this AD; whichever
occurs later: Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the left-hand
and right-hand wing MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs (forward and aft), in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 05, dated October 17, 2013 (for
Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -
303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes); A340-57-
4104, Revision 04, dated October 17, 2013 (for Model A340-211, -212,
-213, -311, -312, -313 airplanes); or A340-57-5009, Revision 03,
dated October 17, 2013 (for Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes).
Repeat the inspections at the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (g)(7) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes,
repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 300 flight cycles
or 1,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes, repeat the
inspections at intervals not to exceed 300 flight cycles or 900
flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (3) For Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -
342, and -343 airplanes, repeat the inspections at intervals not to
exceed 300 flight cycles or 900 flight hours, whichever occurs
first.
    (4) For Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes, repeat the
inspections at intervals not to exceed 200 flight cycles or 800
flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (5) For Model A340-311 and -312 airplanes; and Model A340-313
airplanes (except weight variant (WV) 27), repeat the inspections at
intervals not to exceed 200 flight cycles or 800 flight hours,
whichever occurs first.
    (6) For Model A340-313 (only WV27) airplanes, repeat the
inspections at intervals not to exceed 200 flight cycles or 400
flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (7) For Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes, repeat the
inspections at intervals not to exceed 100 flight cycles or 500
flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(h) Corrective Action

    If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, replace the cracked
MLG support rib using a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Replacement of a
MLG support rib does not terminate the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable
service bulletin identified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(12) of
this AD.
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57A3096, dated December 5,
2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-03-04,
Amendment 39-14915 (74 FR 4416, January 31, 2007), on February 15,
2007.
    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57A3096, Revision 01, dated
April 18, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference by this AD.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 02, dated
August 13, 2007, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-22-
10, Amendment 39-15246 (72 FR 61796, November 1, 2007; corrected
November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64532)), on November 16, 2007.
    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 03, dated
October 24, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference by this AD.
    (5) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 04, dated
February 6, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference by this AD.
    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57A4104, dated December 5,
2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-03-04,
Amendment 39-14915 (72 FR 4416, January 31, 2007), on February 15,
2007.
    (7) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4104, Revision 01, dated
August 13, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference by this AD.
    (8) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4104, Revision 02, dated
September 5, 2007, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-
22-10, Amendment 39-15246 (72 FR 61796, November 1, 2007; corrected
November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64532)), on November 16, 2007.
    (9) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4104, Revision 03, dated
October 24, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference by this AD.
    (10) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57A5009, dated December 5,
2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-03-04,
Amendment 39-14915 (72 FR 4416, January 31, 2007), on February 15,
2007.
    (11) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-5009, Revision 01, dated
August 13, 2007, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-22-
10, Amendment 39-15246 (72 FR 61796, November 1, 2007; corrected
November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64532)), on November 16, 2007.
    (12) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-5009, Revision 02, dated
October 24, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference by this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0271, dated November 14,
2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0620.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 25, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-21055 Filed 9-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 147 (Tuesday, August 2, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47097-47098]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16379]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0473; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASW-9]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation of Class E Airspace; Rocksprings Four Square Ranch
Airport and Sonora Canyon Ranch, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes the Class E airspace at Rocksprings Four
Square Ranch Airport, TX, and Sonora Canyon Ranch, TX. This action is
due to the cancellation of the instrument procedures at the associated
airports, and the airspace no longer being required.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it removes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Four Square Ranch, Rocksprings, TX, and Canyon Ranch
Airport, Sonora, TX, due to the cancellation of the instrument
procedures at these airports, and the airspace no longer being
required.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (87 FR 27539; May 9, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0473 to
remove the Class E airspace at Rocksprings Four Square Ranch Airport,
TX, and Sonora Canyon Ranch, TX. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11F.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:
    Removes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above

the surface at Four Square Ranch Airport, Rocksprings, TX;
    And removes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Canyon Ranch Airport, Sonora, TX.
    This action is the result of the instrument procedures at these
airports being cancelled, and the airspace no longer being required.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Rocksprings Four Square Ranch Airport, TX [Remove]

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Sonora Canyon Ranch, TX [Remove]

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 27, 2022.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-16379 Filed 8-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60076-60077]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24892]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0512]

Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee;
Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for applications; reopening of application period.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is reopening the period for accepting
applications for membership to the Lower Mississippi River Waterway
Safety Advisory Committee. This Committee provides advice and
recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security on matters
relating to communications, surveillance, traffic management,
anchorages, development and operation of the New Orleans Vessel Traffic
Service (VTS), and other related topics dealing with navigation safety
on the Lower Mississippi River as required by the U.S. Coast Guard.

DATES: Applicants should submit a cover letter and resume in time to
reach the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) on or before November 15,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Applicants should send their cover letter and resume to
Captain P.W. Gautier, DFO, Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety
Advisory Committee, 200 Hendee Street, New Orleans, LA 70114; or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by faxing<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by e-mailing to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This notice is available in our online docket, USCG-2011-0512, at
http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Marcie Kohn, Alternate Designated
Federal Officer (ADFO) of the Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety
Advisory Committee; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 11, 2011, the Coast Guard published
a request in the Federal Register volume 76, number 48, page 13422, for
applications for membership in the Lower Mississippi River Waterway
Safety Advisory Committee (LMRWSAC). The deadline for applications
announced in that notice expired on May 1, 2011. Through this notice,
the application period is being re-opened until November 15, 2011.
Applicants who responded to the initial notice do not need to reapply.
    The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee
(LMRWSAC) is a Federal advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L.
92-463). It was established under the authority provided for in section
19 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1991, (Pub. L. 102-241) as
amended by section 621 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010,
(Pub. L. 111-281).
    The Committee is expected to meet twice per year. It may also meet
for extraordinary purposes with the approval of the DFO. The location
of meetings is the U.S. Coast Guard Sector New Orleans building, 200
Hendee Street, New Orleans, LA 70114.
    We will consider applications for 25 positions that expired or
became vacant March 30, 2011. Applicants should have expertise,
knowledge, and experience regarding the transportation, equipment, and
techniques that are used to ship cargo and to navigate vessels on the
Lower Mississippi River and its connecting navigable waterways,
including the Gulf of Mexico.
    1. Five members representing River Port Authorities between Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, and the head of passes of the Lower Mississippi
River, of which one member shall be from the Port of St. Bernard and
one member from the Port of Plaquemines.
    2. Two members representing vessel owners or ship owners domiciled
in the State of Louisiana.
    3. Two members representing organizations which operate harbor tugs
or barge fleets in the geographical area covered by the Committee.
    4. Two members representing companies which transport cargo or
passengers on the navigable waterways in the geographical area covered
by the Committee.
    5. Three members representing State Commissioned Pilot
organizations, with one member each representing New Orleans-Baton
Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, the Crescent River Port Pilots
Association, and the Associated Branch Pilots Association.
    6. Two at-large members who utilize water transportation facilities
located in the geographic area covered by the Committee.
    7. Three members who utilize vessels that transit and use the
navigable waterways covered by the committee. These three members
should comprise of one consumer member, one shipper member, and one
importer/exporter member.
    8. Two members representing those licensed merchant mariners, other
than pilots, who perform shipboard duties on those vessels which
utilize navigable waterways covered by the Committee.
    9. One member representing an organization that serves in a
consulting or advisory capacity to the maritime industry.
    10. One member representing an environmental organization.
    11. One member drawn from the general public.
    12. One member representing the Associated Federal Pilots and
Docking Masters of Louisiana.
    Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal advisory
committees. Registered lobbyists are lobbyists required to comply with
provisions contained in the Lobbyist Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
110-81, as amended).
    Each LMRWSAC Committee member serves a term of office for 2 years
and may serve consecutive terms. All members serve at their own expense
and receive no salary reimbursement of travel expenses, or other
compensation from the Federal Government.
    In support of the policy of the Coast Guard on gender and ethnic
nondiscrimination, we encourage qualified men and women and members of
all racial and ethnic groups to apply. The Coast Guard values diversity
and recognizes that different characteristics and attributes enhance
the Coast Guard mission.
    If you are selected as a non-representative member, or as a member
who is drawn from the general public, you will be appointed and serve
as a Special Government Employee (SGE) as defined in section 202(a) of
Title 18, United States Code. As a candidate for appointment as a SGE,
applicants are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure
Report (OGE Form 450). A completed OGE Form 450 is not releasable to
the public except under an order issued by a Federal court or as
otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Only the
Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO) or the DAEO's Designee may
release a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report.
    Interested applicants should send a cover letter and resume to
Captain P. W. Gautier, DFO, Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety
Advisory Committee, 200 Hendee Street, New Orleans, LA 70114. The
deadline for applications is November 15, 2011.
    To visit our online docket, go to  http://www.regulations.gov,
enter the docket number for this notice (USCG-2011-0512) in the Search
box, and click ``Go.'' Please do not post your resume on this site.

    Dated: August 31, 2011.
R.A. Nash,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-24892 Filed 9-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 249 (Friday, December 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 90179]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28758]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2514-209]

Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment

    On February 28, 2022, as supplemented,\1\ Appalachian Power Company
filed an application for a new major license for the 26.1-megawatt,
two-development Byllesby-Buck Hydroelectric Project (Byllesby-Buck
Project or project; FERC No. 2514). The Byllesby-Buck Project is
located on the New River, near the city of Galax, in Carroll County,
Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The final license application filed February 28, 2022 was
supplemented on February 28, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on October 13,
2023, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for
environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the
record, including comments filed on the REA notice, staff does not
anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on
the application to license the Byllesby-Buck Project.
    The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested
parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and
considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    The application will be processed according to the following
schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission issues EA......................  June 2024.\2\
Comments on EA............................  July 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Jody
Callihan at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations
under 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(1) (2022) require that EAs be completed
within 1 year of the Federal action agency's decision to prepare an
EA. See National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.,
as amended by section 107(g)(1)(B)(iii) of the Fiscal Responsibility
Act of 2023, Public Law 118-5, sec. 4336a, 137 Stat. 42.

    Dated: December 22, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28758 Filed 12-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31254-31257]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13888]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0495; Product Identifier 2019-NM-029-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2019-05-09, which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A320-251N and -
271N airplanes, and Model A321-253N airplanes. AD 2019-05-09 requires
repetitive detailed inspections of certain electrical harnesses for
discrepancies and corrective actions, if necessary. AD 2019-05-09 also
provides an optional terminating modification for the repetitive
detailed inspections. Since we issued AD 2019-05-09, the FAA has
determined that it is necessary to require the terminating
modification. This proposed AD would retain the actions of AD 2019-05-
09 and add a requirement for a terminating modification for the
repetitive inspections, as specified in an European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 15,
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR
material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

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-
0495; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0495;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-029-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact the agency receives about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2019-05-09, Amendment 39-19591 (84 FR 10259,
March 20, 2019) (``AD 2019-05-09''), for certain Airbus SAS Model A320-
251N and -271N airplanes, and Model A321-253N airplanes. AD 2019-05-09
requires repetitive detailed inspections of certain electrical
harnesses for discrepancies and corrective actions, if necessary. AD
2019-05-09 also provides an optional terminating modification for the
repetitive detailed inspections. AD 2019-05-09 resulted from reports of
low clearance between the electrical harness and nearby hydraulic pipes
in the inboard trailing edge of the wing. The FAA issued AD 2019-05-09
to address this condition, which, if not detected and corrected, could
lead to chafing of electrical harnesses in the vicinity of hydraulic
pipes and could result in a potential source of ignition in the
flammable fluid leakage zone, and possibly result in a fire or
explosion and loss of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2019-05-09 Was Issued

    As previously mentioned, AD 2019-05-09 allows for an optional
terminating modification of the airplane, which the EASA AD required
but the FAA excepted. The preamble to AD 2019-05-09 specifies that the
FAA was considering requiring modification of the adaptation damper
bulkhead fitting for left hand and right hand wings to recover correct
clearance between the electrical harness brackets and the damper. That
AD explains that the planned compliance time for the modification would
allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public
comment on the merits of the modification, and this proposed AD follows
from that determination.
    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0035, dated February 15, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0035'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes,
and Model A321-253N airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Low clearance between electrical harness and nearby hydraulic
pipes has been detected in the inboard trailing edge of some
aeroplanes.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
chafing of electrical harnesses on hydraulic pipes, eventually
creating an ignition source in the flammable fluid leakage zone
area, possibly resulting in fire or an explosion and loss of the
aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the
AOT [alert operators transmission], providing instructions to
accomplish a detailed inspection (DET) for clearance and damage, and
published the modification SB [Airbus Service Bulletin A320-29-
1176], providing instructions to modify the electrical harness
routing, increasing the clearance between electrical harness and
hydraulic pipes.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive DET of the electrical harness and modification of the
aeroplane.

Explanation of Retained Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2019-05-09, this proposed AD would retain all of the
requirements of AD 2019-05-09. Those requirements are referenced in
EASA AD 2019-0035, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of
this proposed AD.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2019-0035, which the
Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by
reference as of April 4, 2019 (84 FR 10259, March 20, 2019). This
material is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2019-0035 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to
use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for
compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. As a result,
EASA AD 2019-0035 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final
rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with the
provisions specified in EASA AD 2019-0035, through that incorporation,
except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory
text of this proposed AD. Service information specified in EASA AD
2019-0035 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019-0035 will
be available on the internet http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0495 after the FAA final rule is
published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 14 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2019-05-09...  6 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $510          $7,140
                                         hour = $510.
New proposed actions..................  16 work-hours x $85 per            8,900          10,260         143,640
                                         hour = $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
               Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 8 work-hours x $85 per hour =                   *     Up to $680 *
 $680..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency
  to provide parts cost estimates.

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 proposed 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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2019-05-09, Amendment 39-19591 (84 FR 10259, March 20, 2019), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2019-0495; Product Identifier 2019-NM-
029-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by August 15, 2019.

 (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2019-05-09, Amendment 39-19591 (84 FR 10259,
March 20, 2019) (``AD 2019-05-09'').

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A320-251N and -271N
airplanes, and Model A321-253N airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0035, dated February 15, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0035'').

 (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92, Electrical
system installation.

 (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of low clearance between the
electrical harness and nearby hydraulic pipes in the inboard
trailing edge of the wing. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
this condition, which, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
chafing of electrical harnesses in the vicinity of hydraulic pipes
and could result in a potential source of ignition in the flammable
fluid leakage zone, and possibly result in a fire or explosion and
loss of the airplane.

 (f) Compliance

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

 (g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2019-0035.

 (h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0035

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where Paragraphs (1) and (3) of EASA AD 2019-0035 refer
to its effective date, this AD requires using April 4, 2019 (the
effective date of AD 2019-05-09).
    (2) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where Paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2019-0035 refers to its
effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this
AD.
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0035 does not apply
to this AD.

 (i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although certain service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-
0035 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer,
this AD does not include that requirement.

 (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards 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 International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0035 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

 (k) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2019-0035, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this EASA AD 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. EASA AD 2019-0035 may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2019-0495.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 21, 2019.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-13888 Filed 6-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 117)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35233]
[DOCID:fr19jn06-29]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R10-OAR-2006-0316; FRL-8175-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Medford-Ashland PM10 Attainment Plan, Maintenance Plan and
Redesignation Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a PM10 State Implementation Plan
(SIP) attainment plan and maintenance plan for the Medford-Ashland,
Oregon nonattainment area (Medford-Ashland NAA) and to redesignate the
area from nonattattainment to attainment for PM10. In addition, EPA is
proposing to approve revisions to Oregon's statewide industrial source
rules for new and modified major industrial sources of PM10 and
revisions to the area-specific industrial source rules that apply in
the Medford-Ashland NAA. EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
and redesignation request because the State adequately demonstrates
that the control measures being implemented in the Medford-Ashland
nonattainment area result in attainment and maintenance of the PM10
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and all other requirements of
the Clean Air Act for redesignation to attainment are met.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 19, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2006-0316, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Gina Bonifacino, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics,
AWT-107 EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101.
     Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 Mail Room, 9th Floor, 1200
Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Gina Bonifacino,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, OAWT-107. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Bonifacino at telephone number:
(206) 553-2970, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>fax number:
(206) 553-0110, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
direct final action, of the same title, which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register. EPA is approving the State's SIP
revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA
views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in
the preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse
comments, EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule.
    If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct
final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: May 16, 2006.
L. Michael Bogert,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 06-5507 Filed 6-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Date:	 September 15, 2011

Subject: 	Technical Approach for Mineral Wool MACT Floor Calculations

	EPA Contract No. EP-D-06-118; EPA Work Assignment No. 4-10

	RTI Project No. 0210426.004.010

From: 		Cindy Hancy

		Dave Reeves

To: 		Susan Fairchild, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

Introduction

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the control of the
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from both new and existing major
sources in a source category.  These standards must reflect the maximum
degree of reduction in the HAP emissions that is achievable.  The
minimum level of control is referred to as the “Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) floor.”  The method for determining the MACT
floor for a NESHAP is defined for both new and existing sources in CAA
section 112(d)(3).  For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the
best-controlled similar source.  For existing sources, the MACT floor
cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved
by the best-performing 12% of existing sources for source categories
with 30 or more sources, or the best-performing five sources for source
categories with fewer than 30 sources.

The purpose of this memorandum is to present the data, the methodology,
and the results of the MACT floor analysis for the Mineral Wool
Production NESHAP source category. This analysis is part of EPA's
obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6) to conduct a
residual risk and technology review.  The MACT floor analysis is also
being performed in response to a petition for rulemaking by the Natural
Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club that states EPA failed to set
emission limits for COS and other HAPs emitted by mineral wool
facilities and challenges HAP surrogacies claimed in the current Mineral
Wool NESHAP. This MACT floor analysis uses data collected from a
nationwide voluntary Information Collection Request (ICR) of mineral
wool manufacturers conducted by EPA in 2010.  Data on process
operations, emission controls, and air emissions data reported by
respondents to the ICR were compiled into a Microsoft Access data base
that serves as the data set used for this MACT floor analysis (referred
to in this memorandum as the “ICR data set”).

Background Information

The current Mineral Wool Production NESHAP was promulgated on June 1,
1999 and applies to existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas and curing
ovens at mineral wool production facilities that are major sources of
HAP emissions. The 1999 Mineral Wool Production NESHAP sets particulate
matter (PM) emission limits for new and existing cupolas and carbon
monoxide (CO) limits for new cupolas.  The NESHAP also established
emission limits for formaldehyde from new and existing curing ovens.
Based on the 1999 NESHAP, these regulated pollutants currently serve as
surrogates for other HAPs as follows: PM serves as a surrogate for HAP
metals, CO for carbonyl sulfide (COS), and formaldehyde for phenol and
methanol.

The mineral wool production source category currently consists of 7
facilities in the US; combined, these 7 facilities operate 11 cupolas
and 3 curing ovens. The three facilities that operate curing ovens
produce bonded mineral wool products.  In addition to curing ovens,
sources of HAP emissions associated with bonded product manufacturing
include collection operations.  There were no MACT emission limits
established for collection operations in the 1999 Mineral Wool NESHAP.
Bonded lines use HAP containing binders that result in formaldehyde,
phenol, and methanol emissions from curing ovens and collection sources.
The stack configurations of curing and collection operations vary at the
three facilities operating bonded lines. The proposed amendments to the
rule as a result of this review will include formaldehyde, methanol, and
phenol limits for collection operations; however, due to the differences
in processes, associated exhaust streams, and stack configurations at
the three bonded lines, EPA is proposing pollutant-specific emission
limits for both curing ovens and collection operations combined.

The specific chemicals, compounds, or groups of compounds designated as
HAP are listed in CAA section 112(b). From this list, the following
additional HAPs were identified as being emitted from cupolas and would
be regulated for new and existing sources in the proposed rule: carbonyl
sulfide (COS), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and hydrogen chloride (HCl).

MACT Floor Analysis - Subcategories

Under CAA section 112(d)(1), EPA has the discretion to “...distinguish
among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or
subcategory in establishing...” standards.  When separate
subcategories are established, a MACT floor is determined separately for
each subcategory.  To determine whether the mineral wool production
facilities warrant subcategorization for the MACT floor analysis, EPA
reviewed unit and process designs, operating information, and air
emissions data compiled in the ICR data set and other information
collected by the Agency for development of the NESHAP for this source
category.  Based on this review, EPA concluded that there are
significant design and operational differences in the collection
operations at each of the three facilities that operate a bonded line.

These three collection subcategories are listed below.

Vertical Collection:  In this design, the molten rock/slag mixture is
poured from the cupola spout onto a group of stainless steel drums
spinning in opposite directions.  The spinning drums form fine fibers
of the mineral mixture.  High air volume directs the fibers off the
fiberization spinners, toward a fast-moving porous vertical conveyor
belt. A strong vacuum is drawn on the opposite side of the belt, causing
the fibers to lie against the vertical belt as it moves upward.  At the
top of the conveyance, the belt travels around a curve, the vacuum is
released, and the fibers are removed on a second belt that conveys the
layer of binder-sprayed mineral wool fibers into the curing oven.

The vertical conveyer belt requires high volumes of air to be drawn
through the belt and results in the collection of a thin fiber layer
upon the belt.  In this design, ‘shot’, BB-sized black granules
that are high in iron (a result of using slag from the iron and steel
industry), fall out of the fiber layer.  The vertical design is used to
produce a specific type of mineral wool that is low in ‘shot’ and
may be used in the hydroponic gardening market, as well as, in a
specialized market of insulation products in which shot is undesirable.

Horizontal Collection: This process is similar to vertical collection,
except that the conveyor belt works with gravitational forces and
results in a thicker layer of mineral wool collected upon the horizontal
belt.  This method also requires lower air volume drawn through the
fiber layer than in the vertical design, and the ‘shot’ is not
selectively removed. The air stream is conducive to thermal oxidation at
the hottest part of the cupola exhaust stack or at the existing thermal
oxidizer on the curing oven.

Drum Collection:  In this design, fibers are drawn using a very high
volume air flow into the center of a rotating drum.  The sides of the
rotating drum have small holes through which the air flow may exit but
the fibers are caught.  The angle of the drum, the vacuum, and
centrifugal forces pull the fibers against the inside wall of the drum
and out the end. The entire drum is enclosed and the air flow may be
vented to the hottest part of the cupola exhaust stack or to an existing
thermal oxidizer on the curing oven.

MACT Floor Analysis Methodology

Existing Sources

A MACT floor analysis was completed for each proposed regulated
pollutant as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 – Summary of Proposed Limits

	Existing Sources	New Sources

Cupolas

PM	Current PM limit will remain the same. No MACT floor analysis
performed.

CO	EPA is proposing to remove the current CO limit since it was/is a
surrogate for COS in the 1999 NESHAP

COS	X	X

HF	X	X

HCl	X	X

Curing & Collection (combined)

Formaldehyde	X	X

Phenol	X	X

Methanol	X	X

A MACT floor analysis was not performed for PM since EPA is not
proposing any changes to the current PM limits. The current formaldehyde
limit only applies to curing ovens. As previously mentioned, EPA is now
developing new MACT emission limits for collection operations.
Therefore, a MACT floor analysis that includes both curing and
collection was performed for new and existing sources.  No current
emission limits exist for COS, HF, HCl, phenol, or methanol; in order to
propose limits for each pollutant, a MACT floor analysis was performed
for each of these pollutants for new and existing sources.

The first step in the MACT floor analysis for each regulated source and
HAP was to rank each unit (for which emissions data was provided) by
emission level (lowest to highest) for each pollutant.  From this
ranking, a MACT floor pool of sources was identified for determining the
minimum control level allowed for the MACT floor, consistent with the
criteria defined for new and existing sources by CAA section 112(d)(3).
For the new source MACT floors, the best-controlled source was
identified for which there were individual source test run data in the
ICR data set.  For the existing source MACT floors, selection of the
MACT floor pool size (i.e., number of emission units to be included in
the determination of the average emission limitation value) was
determined on an individual unit category basis as described below.

Cupolas.   This category includes fewer than 30 sources.  Therefore, the
existing source MACT floors for COS, HF, and HCl emissions were based on
the top 5 best performing cupolas. For new sources, the MACT floor was
based on the best performing cupola for each pollutant.

Curing & Vertical Collection.  Currently, only one facility operates
this type of collection.  Formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol MACT floors
for new and existing sources were based on emission test runs for
combined curing and collection operations from this facility.

Curing & Horizontal Collection.  Currently, only one facility operates
this type of collection.  Formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol MACT floors
for new and existing sources were based on emission test runs for
combined curing and collection operations from this facility.

Curing & Drum Collection.  Currently, only one facility operates this
type of collection.  Formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol MACT floors for
new and existing sources were based on emission test runs for combined
curing and collection operations from this facility.

The next step in the MACT floor analysis was to account for data
variability in the calculations of the applicable MACT floor limits for
the subcategories using the data’s 99% upper prediction limit (UPL).
Specifically, the MACT floor limit was determined as the UPL calculated
with the Student’s t-test using the “TINV” function in Microsoft
Excel software.  The UPL approach has also been used in other EPA
rulemakings (e.g., NESHAP for Portland Cement, NSPS for
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators, NESHAP for Industrial,
Commercial, Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, and NESHAP for
Electric Generating Units) to account for variability in emissions data
for a specified level of confidence.  The level of confidence represents
the level of protection afforded to facilities whose emissions are in
line with the best performers.  For example, a 99% level of confidence
means that a facility whose emissions are consistent with the best
performers has one chance in 100 of exceeding the floor limit.  A
prediction interval for a single future observation (or an average of
several test observations) is an interval that will, with a specified
degree of confidence, contain the next (or the average of some other
pre-specified number) of randomly selected observation(s) from a
population.  In other words, the upper prediction limit estimates what
the upper bound of future values will be, based upon present or past
background samples taken.  The UPL consequently represents the value at
which we can expect the mean of future observations for the HAP
emissions to fall within a specified level of confidence, based upon the
results of an independent sample from the same population.  This method
accounts for the point-to-point variability in the data.

The form of the UPL equation differs somewhat depending upon the number
of data points and data distribution to which it is applied. Attachment
A includes a flow diagram that summarizes the UPL approaches used. To
this end, the data sets were evaluated for each HAP to ascertain whether
the data were normally distributed, or fit another type of distribution
(e.g., log normal distribution).  According to the Central Limit Theorem
(Durrett, 1996), when a data set includes 15 or more sources, the UPL is
based on the assumption that the data fit a normal distribution.  The
Central Limit Theorem states that regardless of the shape of the
original distribution, if the distribution has a finite mean (μ) and
variance (σ²), the sampling distribution of the mean approaches a
normal distribution with a mean of (μ) and a variance of σ²/N as N,
the sample size, increases (Durrett, 1996).

The mineral wool data sets used to calculate MACT floors for each
pollutant all contained less than 15 sources. When the sample size is
smaller than 15 and the distribution of the data is unknown, the Central
Limit Theorem cannot be used to support the normality assumption.
Statistical test of the kurtosis, skewness, and goodness of fit test are
then used to evaluate the normality assumption.  The skewness statistic
(S) characterizes the degree of asymmetry of a given data distribution.
Normally distributed data have an S value of 0.  An S value that is
greater (less) than 0 indicates that the data are asymmetrically
distributed with a right (left) tail extending towards positive
(negative) values.  The standard error of the skewness statistic (SES)
was also used in determining the normality of the data distribution.
The kurtosis statistic (K) characterizes the degree of peakedness or
flatness of a given data distribution in comparison to a normal
distribution.  Normally distributed data have a K value of 0.  A K value
that is greater (less) than 0 indicates a relatively peaked (flat)
distribution.  The standard error of the kurtosis statistic (SEK) was
also used in determining the normality of the data distribution.

For each data set to which the UPL was applied (i.e., the separate data
sets for each HAP applicable to a source), the S and K values were
calculated using the reported test values.  If both kurtosis and
skewness tests indicate the data is normally distributed, the UPL was
calculated using the UPL pooled variance Equation 1.

   		Equation 1

where:

  	=  the average (mean) of the best performing existing sources;

	t(p,df) 	=  the t statistic for a confidence level p, and df degrees of
freedom;

	s2	=  the pooled variance;

	n	=  the total number of test runs (all sources) used in the analysis;
and

	m	=  the number of (future) compliance test runs [for run-by-run data,
m=3].

Degrees of freedom calculated by:

 							    Equation 1a

Mean calculated by:

               Equation 1b

Pooled variance calculated by:

                                                      		    Equation 1c

If the kurtosis or skewness tests indicate the data was not normally
distributed, the data were log-transformed. Once the logs of all the
test runs were calculated, new kurtosis and skewness tests were
performed on the log-transformed data. If both kurtosis and skewness
tests indicated the log-transformed data were normally distributed, the
UPL can be calculated using the Equation 2.

                     Equation 2

where:

	μ	=  the average of the best performing existing sources;

  	=  the z statistic for a lognormal distribution at 99 percent;

 	=  the variance;

	n	=  the total number of test runs (all sources) used in the analysis;
and

	m	=  the number of (future) compliance test runs [for run-by-run data
m=3].

Mean is calculated by:

                        Equation 2a

Variance is calculated by:

           Equation 2b

If the raw data and the log-transformed data were not normally
distributed and n ≥13, the UPL was calculated using the UPL pooled
variance with skewness adjustment in Equation 3.  Note this adjustment
cannot be used if the number of individual runs is less than 13.

    Equation 3

where:

  	=  the average of the best performing existing sources;

	t(p,df) 	=  the t statistic for a confidence level p, and df degrees of
freedom;

	s2	=  the pooled variance;

	n	=  the total number of test runs (all sources) used in the analysis;

	m	=  the number of (future) compliance test runs [for run-by-run data
m=3]; and

	Skew	=  the skewness of the test runs used in the analysis.

If the raw data and the log-transformed data were not normally
distributed and n was less than 13 the UPL was calculated using the UPL
pooled variance in Equation 1, but instead of using the Excel TINV
formula to find the t statistic t(p,df), a trial and error method was
used to find the t static that gives a 99 percent confidence level by
correcting the probability values  (p) using Equation 4

λ3(t) – Kurtosis x Pλ4(t) + λ32xP λ3/2(t)       Equation 4

Adjustment for Below Detection Level Emissions Data

Prior to calculating the UPLs, test runs that were below detection limit
(BDL) were identified.  If a dataset contained any BDL values, the UPL
was calculated using BDL values as reported in the test report. After
the UPL was completed for a particular source and pollutant, a
comparison of the UPL and the representative method detection level
(RDL) was performed.  The first step in the comparison was to, for a
particular emissions unit category, find the mean of the emissions data
set, which was calculated during the UPL calculations. The second step
was to identify the largest BDL value of the dataset that was no greater
than the mean of the entire dataset. This value was the RDL for the
pollutant data set of the emission unit category. The RDL was then
multiplied by 3 and the product is compared to the UPL.  If the 3x RDL
value was less than or equal to the calculated UPL value, the UPL value
was used as the proposed MACT Floor Limit. If the 3x RDL value was
greater than the calculated UPL value, the 3x RDL value was used as the
proposed MACT Floor Limit. If no BDL values were included in the
pollutant data set for a particular unit type, these steps were not
performed.

MACT Floor Analysis Results

-

!

 h

h

Y

h

hç

- h¢

- h¢

h¢

h¢

	”

Æ

hd

hd

hd

摧ᥤÔ

.Production source category.

Table 2. Summary of Proposed MACT floors for the Mineral Wool Source
Category

	Total Sources in Industry	Mean of Sources Used in UPL Analysis	99% UPL
Caclulated for Existing Sources	99% UPL Caclulated for New Sources

Cupolas	11

Carbonyl Sulfide

1.07	3.30	0.017

Hydrogen Flouride

0.0089	0.014	0.014

Hydrogen Chloride

0.0066	0.0096	0.0096

Curing & Drum Collection	1

Formaldehyde

0.045	0.067	0.067

Phenol

0.00039	0.0023	0.0023

Methanol

0.00011	0.00077	0.00077

Curing & Vertical Collection	1

Formaldehyde

0.45	0.46	0.46

Phenol

0.50	0.52	0.52

Methanol

0.62	0.63	0.63

Curing & Horizontal Collection	1

Formaldehyde

0.054	0.054	0.054

Phenol

0.013	0.15	0.15

Methanol

0.0081	0.022	0.022

Attachment A

DRAFT 3-1-11

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  10


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21224-21225]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08434]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-1670-000]

Community Wind North 5 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Community Wind North 5 LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard

to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part
34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is
April 28, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 8, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08434 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P