[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8160-8166]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3379]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0873; FRL-9630-7]
RIN 2060-AH23

Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitoring
Systems at Stationary Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action to establish quality
assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures for continuous opacity
monitoring systems (COMS) used to demonstrate continuous compliance
with opacity standards in federally enforceable regulations. This
action is necessary because we do not currently have QA/QC procedures
for COMS. This action would require COMS used to demonstrate continuous
compliance to meet these procedures (referred to as Procedure 3).

DATES: This rule is effective on April 16, 2012 without further notice,
unless the EPA receives adverse comment by March 15, 2012. If the EPA
receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0873 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0873,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: The EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0873. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Procedure 3--Quality
Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems at
Stationary Sources Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Docket Facility and Public
Reading Room are open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lula H. Melton, U.S. EPA, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division,
Measurement Technology Group (Mail Code: E143-02), Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-0516; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I obtain a copy of this action?
    D. Judicial Review
II. This Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule
because we view this as a non-controversial action and anticipate no
adverse comment. This action establishes QA/QC procedures for
continuous opacity monitoring systems used to demonstrate continuous
compliance with opacity standards in federally enforceable regulations.
We believe that these QA/QC procedures are reasonable and that they can
be met by any well-maintained and operated COMS. Furthermore, the
procedures were developed based on input provided by the affected
parties. On May 8, 2003, we published a proposed rule to codify QA/QC
procedures for COMS (i.e., Procedure 3). Due to other priorities, we
did not finalize Procedure 3, but public comments received on the
proposal have been considered in this action. This rule also takes into
account changes in technology since 2003.
    In the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal Register, we are
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule if
relevant adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting, must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
this direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all
public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed
rule.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Procedure 3 applies to COMS used to demonstrate continuous
compliance with opacity standards in federally enforceable regulations.

C. Where can I obtain a copy of this action?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this rule will also be available on the Worldwide Web (www) through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's
signature, a copy of the final rule will be placed on the TTN's policy
and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. A redline strikeout
document that compares this final rule to the proposed rule has also
been added to the docket.

D. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this direct final rule is available by filing a petition for review
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by April 16, 2012. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only
an objection to this direct final rule that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements that are the subject of this direct final rule may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.

II. This Action

    This direct final rule codifies Procedure 3 in 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix F. Procedure 3 establishes quality assurance and quality
control procedures for continuous opacity monitoring systems used to
demonstrate continuous compliance with opacity standards in federally
enforceable regulations. More specifically, Procedure 3 provides
requirements for daily instrument zero and upscale drift checks, daily
status indicator checks, quarterly performance audits, annual zero
alignment audits, and corrective action for malfunctioning COMS. On May
8, 2003, we published a proposed rule to codify Procedure 3. However,
due to other priorities, we did not finalize Procedure 3 after the
comment period ended July 7, 2003. Public comments received on the May
8, 2003, proposal have been considered in this action.
    Most of the comments on the 2003 proposal required us to provide
clarifications and updates. For example, several commenters were
confused by the wording of the applicability statement in the 2003
proposal. We revised the applicability statement in the direct final
rule to remove the ambiguity. The direct final rule references the
1998, 2003, and 2007 versions of the American Society of Testing and
Materials' Standard Practice for Opacity Monitor Manufacturers to
Certify Conformance with Design and Performance Specifications, whereas
the 2003 proposal referenced the 1998 version only.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). These quality assurance
procedures do not add information collection requirements beyond those
currently required under the applicable regulations.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of accessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small
entities, I

certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not impose
any requirements on small entities. This action establishes quality
assurance procedures for continuous opacity monitoring systems used to
demonstrate continuous compliance with opacity standards as specified
in federally enforceable regulations and does not impose additional
regulatory requirements on sources.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Rules establishing quality assurance requirements impose no costs
independent from national emission standards which require their use,
and such costs are fully reflected in the regulatory impact assessment
for those emission standards. Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action simply
establishes quality assurance procedures for continuous opacity
monitoring systems used to demonstrate continuous compliance with
opacity standards as specified in federally enforceable regulations.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action establishes quality
assurance procedures for continuous opacity monitoring systems used to
demonstrate continuous compliance with opacity standards as specified
in federally enforceable regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action
establishes quality assurance procedures for continuous opacity
monitoring systems used to demonstrate continuous compliance with
opacity standards as specified in federally enforceable regulations. It
does not add any emission limits and does not affect pollutant
emissions or air quality. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this direct final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This rule does not relax the control measures on sources
regulated by the rule and, therefore, will not cause emissions
increases from these sources.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective April 16, 2012.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Continuous opacity
monitoring.

    Dated: February 6, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Appendix F of part 60 is amended by adding Procedure 3 to read as
follows:

Appendix F to Part 60--Quality Assurance Procedures

* * * * *

Procedure 3--Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity
Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources

1.0 What are the purpose and applicability of Procedure 3?

    The purpose of Procedure 3 is to establish quality assurance and
quality control (QA/QC) procedures for continuous opacity monitoring
systems (COMS). Procedure 3 applies to COMS used to demonstrate
continuous compliance with opacity standards in federally
enforceable regulations.
    1.1 What are the data quality objectives of Procedure 3? The
overall data quality objective (DQO) of Procedure 3 is the
generation of valid and representative opacity data. Procedure 3
specifies the minimum requirements for controlling and assessing the
quality of COMS data submitted to us or the delegated regulatory
agency. Procedure 3 requires you to perform periodic evaluations of
a COMS performance and to develop and implement QA/QC programs to
ensure that COMS data quality is maintained.
    1.2 What is the intent of the QA/QC procedures specified in
Procedure 3? Procedure 3 is intended to establish the minimum QA/QC
requirements to verify and maintain an acceptable level of quality
of the data produced by COMS. It is presented in general terms to
allow you to develop a program that is most effective for your
circumstances.
    1.3 When must I comply with Procedure 3? You must comply with
Procedure 3 after your COMS has been initially certified.

2.0 What are the basic functions of Procedure 3?

    The basic functions of Procedure 3 are assessment of the quality
of your COMS data and control and improvement of the quality of the
data by implementing QC requirements and corrective actions.
Procedure 3 provides requirements for:
    (1) Daily instrument zero and upscale drift checks, as well as,
daily status indicators checks;
    (2) Quarterly performance audits which include the following
assessments:
    (i) Optical alignment,
    (ii) Calibration error,
    (iii) Zero compensation; and
    (3) Annual zero alignment.
    Sources that consistently achieve quality assured data may
request a semi-annual audit frequency by submitting the request in
writing to the Administrator.

3.0 What special definitions apply to Procedure 3?

    The definitions in Procedure 3 include those provided in
Performance Specification 1 (PS-1) of Appendix B and ASTM D 6216-98,
03, 07 and the following additions.
    3.1 Out-of-control periods. Out-of-control periods mean that one
or more COMS parameters falls outside of the acceptable limits
established by this rule.
    (1) Daily Assessments. Whenever the calibration drift (CD)
exceeds twice the specification of PS-1, the COMS is out-of-control.
The beginning of the out-of-control period is the time corresponding
to the completion of the daily calibration drift check. The end of
the out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the
completion of appropriate adjustment and subsequent successful CD
assessment.
    (2) Quarterly and Annual Assessments. Whenever an annual zero
alignment or quarterly performance audit indicates noncompliance
with the criteria established in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section
10.4, the COMS is out-of-control. The beginning of the out-of-
control period is the time corresponding to the completion of the
performance audit indicating noncompliance. The end of the out-of-
control period is the time corresponding to the completion of
appropriate corrective actions and the subsequent successful audit
(or, if applicable, partial audit).

4.0 What interferences must I avoid?

    Opacity cannot be measured accurately in the presence of water
droplets. Thus, COMS opacity compliance determinations cannot be
made when water droplets are present, such as downstream of a wet
scrubber without a reheater or at other saturated flue gas
locations.

5.0 What do I need to know to ensure the safety of persons using
Procedure 3?

    People using Procedure 3 may be exposed to hazardous materials,
operations and equipment. Procedure 3 does not purport to address
all of the safety issues associated with its use. It is your
responsibility to establish appropriate health and safety practices
and determine the applicable regulatory limitations before
performing this procedure. You should consult the COMS user's manual
for specific precautions to take.

6.0 What equipment and supplies do I need?

    The equipment and supplies that you need are specified in PS-1.

7.0 What reagents and standards do I need?

    The reagents and standards that you need are specified in PS-1.

8.0 What sample collection, preservation, storage, and transport
are relevant to this procedure ? [Reserved]

9.0 What quality control measures are required by this procedure
for my COMS?

    You must develop and implement a QC program for your COMS. Your
QC program must, at a minimum, include written procedures which
describe in detail complete step-by-step procedures and operations
for the activities in paragraphs (1) through (4):
    (1) Procedures for performing drift checks, including both zero
and upscale drift and the status indicators check,
    (2) Procedures for performing quarterly performance audits,
    (3) A means of checking the zero alignment of the COMS, and
    (4) A program of corrective action for a malfunctioning COMS.
The corrective action must include, at a minimum, the requirements
specified in section 10.5.
    9.1 What QA/QC documentation must I have? You are required to
keep the QA/QC written procedures on record and available for
inspection by us, the State, and/or local enforcement agencies for
the life of your COMS or until you are no longer subject to the
requirements of this procedure.
    9.2 What are the consequences of failing QC audits? Your QC
procedures are deemed to be inadequate or your COMS incapable of
providing quality data if you fail two consecutive annual audits,
two consecutive quarterly audits, or five consecutive daily checks.
If this occurs, you must either revise your QC procedures or repair
or replace the COMS to correct the deficiencies causing the audit
failures. If you determine that your COMS requires extensive
repairs, you may use a substitute COMS provided the substitute meets
the requirements in section 10.6.

10.0 What calibration and standardization procedures must I perform
for my COMS?

    (1) You must perform routine system checks to ensure proper
operation of system electronics and optics, light and radiation
sources and detectors, electric or electro-mechanical systems, and
general stability of the system calibration.
    (2) You must subject your COMS to a performance audit to include
checks of the individual COMS components and factors affecting the
accuracy of the monitoring data at least once per calendar quarter.
    (3) At least annually, you must perform a zero alignment by
comparing the COMS simulated zero to the actual clear path zero. The
simulated zero device produces a simulated clear path condition or
low-level opacity condition, where the energy reaching the detector
is between 90 and 110 percent of the energy reaching the detector
under actual clear path conditions.
    10.1 What routine system checks must I perform on my COMS?
Necessary components of the routine system checks will depend on the
design details of your COMS. At a minimum, you must verify the
system operating parameters listed in paragraphs (1) through (3) of
this section on a daily basis. Some COMS may perform one or more of
these functions automatically or as an integral portion of unit
operations; other COMS may perform one or more of these functions
manually.
    (1) You must check the zero drift to ensure stability of your
COMS response to the simulated zero device. The simulated zero
device, an automated mechanism within the transmissometer that
produces a simulated clear path condition or low-level opacity
condition, is used to check the zero drift. You must, at a minimum,
take corrective action on your COMS whenever the daily zero drift
exceeds twice the applicable drift specification in PS-1.
    (2) You must check the upscale drift to ensure stability of your
COMS response to the upscale drift value. The upscale calibration
device, an automated mechanism (employing a filter or reduced
reflectance device) within the transmissometer that produces an
upscale opacity value is used to check the upscale drift. You must,
at a minimum, take corrective action on your COMS whenever the daily
upscale drift check exceeds twice the applicable drift specification
in PS-1.

    (3) You must, at a minimum, check the status indicators, data
acquisition system error messages, and other system self-diagnostic
indicators. You must take appropriate corrective action based on the
manufacturer's recommendations when the COMS is operating outside
preset limits. All COMS data recorded during periods in which the
fault status indicators are illuminated are to be considered
invalid.
    10.2 What are the quarterly auditing requirements for my COMS?
At a minimum, the parameters listed in paragraphs (1) through (3) of
this section must be included in the quarterly performance audit.
    (1) For units with automatic zero compensation, you must
determine the zero compensation for the COMS. The value of the zero
compensation applied at the time of the audit must be calculated as
equivalent opacity and corrected to stack exit conditions according
to the procedures specified by the manufacturer. The compensation
applied to the effluent recorded by the monitor system must be
recorded.
    (2) You must conduct a three-point calibration error test of the
COMS. For either calibration error test method identified below,
three neutral density filters meeting the requirements of PS-1 must
be placed in the COMS light beam path for at least three
nonconsecutive readings. All monitor responses must then be
independently recorded from the COMS permanent data recorder.
Additional guidance for conducting this test is included in section
8.1(3)(ii) of PS-1. The low-, mid-, and high-range calibration error
results must be computed as the mean difference and 95 percent
confidence interval for the difference between the expected and
actual responses of the monitor as corrected to stack exit
conditions. The equations necessary to perform the calculations are
found in section 12.0 of PS-1. For the calibration error method, you
must use the external audit device. You must confirm that the
external audit device produces a zero value within one percent
opacity.
    (3) You must check the optical alignment of the COMS. The
optical alignment should be checked when the stack temperature is
50 percent of the typical operating temperature in
degrees Farenheit.
    10.3 What are the annual auditing requirements for my COMS?
    (1) You must perform the primary zero alignment method under
clear path conditions. The COMS may be removed from its installation
and setup under clear path conditions or, if the process is not
operating and the monitor path is free of particulate matter, the
zero alignment may be conducted at the installed site. Determining
if the monitor path is free of particulate matter can be
accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following procedure:
observe the instantaneous or one-minute average opacity for at least
two hours prior to the clear path adjustment; open the reflector or
detector housing and observe the projected light beam and look for
the presence of forward scattered light (halo-effect); if the beam
observation reveals no perceptible particulate, and the 2-hour
readings do not vary more than 3 percent opacity, adjust
the clear path zero based on the lowest opacity reading recorded
during the 2-hour period. There must be no adjustments to the
monitor other than the establishment of the proper monitor path
length and correct optical alignment of the COMS components. You
must record the COMS response to a clear condition and to the COMS's
simulated zero condition as percent opacity corrected to stack exit
conditions. For a COMS with automatic zero compensation, you must
disconnect or disable the zero compensation mechanism or record the
amount of correction applied to the COMS's simulated zero condition.
The response difference in percent opacity to the clear path and
simulated zero conditions must be recorded as the zero alignment
error. You must adjust the COMS's simulated zero device to provide
the same response as the clear path condition as specified in
paragraph (3) of section 10.0. You must perform the zero alignment
audits with the COMS off the stack at least every three years.
    (2) As an alternative, monitors capable of allowing the
installation of an external zero device (commonly referred to as
zero-jig) may use the device for the zero alignment provided that:
the zero-jig setting has been established for the monitor path
length and recorded for the specific COMS by comparison of the COMS
responses to the installed zero-jig and to the clear path condition,
and the zero-jig is demonstrated to be capable of producing a
consistent zero response when it is repeatedly (i.e., three
consecutive installations and removals prior to conducting the final
zero alignment check) installed on the COMS. This can be
demonstrated by either the MCOC or actual on-site performance. The
zero-jig setting must be permanently set at the time of initial
zeroing to the clear path zero value and protected when not in use
to ensure that the setting equivalent to zero opacity does not
change. The zero-jig response must be checked and recorded prior to
initiating the zero alignment. If the zero-jig setting has changed,
you must remove the COMS from the stack in order to reset the zero-
jig. If you employ a zero-jig, you must perform the zero alignment
audits with the COMS off the stack at least every three years. If
the zero-jig is adjusted within the three-year period, you must
perform the zero alignment with the COMS off the stack no later than
three years from the date of adjustment.
    (3) The procedure in section 6.8 of ASTM D 6216-98, 03, 07 is
allowed.
    (4) Other alternatives that verify that the zero optical
adjustment is 3 percent opacity are also allowed.
    10.4 What are my limits for excessive audit inaccuracy? Unless
specified otherwise in the applicable subpart, the criteria for
excessive inaccuracy are listed in paragraphs (1) through (4) of
this section.
    (1) What is the criterion for excessive zero or upscale drift?
Your COMS is out-of-control if either the zero drift check or
upscale drift check exceeds twice the applicable drift specification
in PS-1 for any one day.
    (2) What is the criterion for excessive zero alignment? Your
COMS is out-of-control if the zero alignment error exceeds 2 percent
opacity.
    (3) What is the criterion to pass the quarterly performance
audit? Your COMS is out-of-control if the results of a quarterly
performance audit indicate noncompliance with the following
criteria:
    (i) The optical alignment misalignment error exceeds 3 percent
opacity,
    (ii) The zero compensation exceeds 4 percent opacity, or
    (iii) The calibration error exceeds 3 percent opacity.
    (4) What is the criterion for data capture? The data capture
will be considered insufficient if your COMS fails to obtain valid
opacity data for at least 95 percent of your operating hours per
calendar quarter, considering COMS downtime for all causes (e.g.,
monitor malfunctions, data system failures, preventative
maintenance, unknown causes, etc.) except for downtime associated
with routine zero and upscale checks and QA/QC activities required
by this procedure. Whenever less than 95 percent of the valid data
averages are obtained, you must either:
    (i) Perform additional QA/QC activities as deemed necessary to
ensure acceptable data capture, or
    (ii) Determine if the COMS is functioning properly. If your COMS
is malfunctioning, you may use a substitute COMS until repairs are
made, provided the substitute meets the requirements in section
10.6.
    10.5 What corrective action must I take if my COMS is
malfunctioning? You must have a corrective action program in place
to address the repair and/or maintenance of your COMS. There are
four classes of maintenance and repair procedures to be considered
as described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this section. They may
be performed at the manufacturer's facility, a service provider's
facility, the user's instrument laboratory, or at the stack/duct at
the discretion of the owner/operator and within the recommendation
of the manufacturer. They must be performed by persons either
skilled and/or trained in the operation and maintenance of the
analyzer. After the repair/maintenance of your COMS, you must ensure
that the COMS is still in compliance with PS-1. Table 17-1 outlines
the tests required to maintain PS-1 certification.
    (1) Routine/Preventative Maintenance. Routine/preventative
maintenance includes the routine replacement of consumables,
cleaning of optical surfaces, and adjustment of monitor operating
parameters as needed to maintain normal operation. Replacement of
consumables that have the possibility of adversely affecting the
performance of an analyzer may cause the nature of the maintenance
procedure to fall within one of the classifications described below.
    (2) Measurement Non-Critical Repairs. Measurement non-critical
repairs include repair and/or replacement of standard non-critical
components, the unique characteristics of which do not materially
affect the performance of the monitor. These components include, but
are not limited to, resistors, capacitors, inductors, transformers,
semiconductors, such as discrete components and integrated circuits,
brackets and machined parts (not associated with internal optical
components), cabling and connectors,

electro mechanical components, such as relays, solenoids, motors,
switches, blowers, pressure/flow indicators, tubing, indicator
lights, software with the same version and/or revision level, glass
windows (uncoated or anti-reflection coated, but with no curvature),
lenses with mounts where such mounts are not adjustable as
installed, circuit boards where such boards are interchangeable and
without unique adjustments (except offset and gain adjustments) for
the specific analyzer of the same model, with such repairs to
include the maintenance procedures required to ensure that the
analyzer is appropriately setup.
    (3) Primary Measurement Light Source. Repair or replace the
primary measurement light source.
    (4) Measurement Critical Repairs. Measurement critical repairs
include repair and/or replacement of measurement sensitive
components, the unique characteristics of which may materially
affect the performance of the monitor. These components include, but
are not limited to, optical detectors associated with the opacity
measurement/reference beam(s), spectrally selective optical filters,
beam splitters, internal zero and/or upscale reference reflective or
transmissive materials, electro optical light switches, retro
reflectors, adjustable apertures used on external zero devices or
reflectors, lenses which have an adjustable mount, circuit boards
which are not completely interchangeable and/or require unique
adjustments for the specific analyzer, with such repairs to include
the maintenance procedures required to ensure that the analyzer is
appropriately setup.
    (5) Rebuilt or Refurbished Analyzers. Rebuilt or refurbished
analyzers include analyzers for which a major sub-assembly has been
replaced or multiple lesser sub-assemblies with different revision
levels from the original have been replaced and/or modified. This
also includes major changes to the analyzer measurement detection
and processing hardware or software.
    10.6 What requirements must I meet if I use a substitute opacity
monitor? In the event that your certified opacity monitor has to be
removed for extended service, you may install a temporary
replacement monitor to obtain required opacity emissions data
provided that:
    (1) The temporary monitor has been certified according to ASTM D
6216-98, 03, 07 for which a manufacturer's certificate of
conformance (MCOC) has been provided;
    (2) The use of the temporary monitor does not exceed 720 hours
(30 days) of operation per year as a replacement for a fully
certified opacity monitor. After that time, the analyzer must
complete a full certification according to PS-1 prior to further use
as a temporary replacement monitor. Once a temporary replacement
monitor has been installed and required testing and adjustments have
been successfully completed, it cannot be replaced by another
temporary replacement monitor to avoid the full PS-1 certification
testing required after 720 hours (30 days) of use;
    (3) The temporary monitor has been installed and successfully
completed an optical alignment assessment and status indicator
assessment;
    (4) The temporary monitor has successfully completed an off-
stack clear path zero assessment and zero calibration value
adjustment procedure;
    (5) The temporary monitor has successfully completed an
abbreviated zero and upscale drift check consisting of seven zero
and upscale calibration value drift checks which may be conducted
within a 24-hour period with not more than one calibration drift
check every three hours and not less than one calibration drift
check every 25 hours. Calculated zero and upscale drift requirements
are the same as specified for the normal PS-1 certification;
    (6) The temporary monitor has successfully completed a three-
point calibration error test;
    (7) The upscale reference calibration check value of the new
monitor has been updated in the associated data recording equipment;
    (8) The overall calibration of the monitor and data recording
equipment has been verified; and
    (9) The user has documented all of the above in the maintenance
log or in other appropriate permanently maintained records.
    10.7 When do out-of-control periods begin and end? The out-of-
control periods are as specified in section 3.1.
    10.8 What are the limitations on the use of my COMS data
collected during out-of-control periods? During the period your COMS
is out-of-control, you may not use your COMS data to calculate
emission compliance or to meet minimum data capture requirements in
this procedure or the applicable regulation.
    10.9 What are the QA/QC reporting requirements for my COMS? You
must report the accuracy results from section 10.0 for your COMS at
the interval specified in this procedure or the applicable
regulation. You must report the drift and accuracy information as a
Data Assessment Report (DAR), and include one copy of this DAR for
each quarterly audit with the report of emissions required under the
applicable regulation. An example DAR is provided in Procedure 1,
Appendix F of this part.
    10.10 What minimum information must I include in my DAR? At a
minimum, you must include the information listed in paragraphs (1)
through (5) of this section in the DAR.
    (1) Your name and address,
    (2) Identification and location of your COMS(s),
    (3) Manufacturer, model, and serial number of your COMS(s),
    (4) Assessment of COMS data accuracy/acceptability and date of
assessment as determined by a performance audit described in section
10.0. If the accuracy audit results show your COMS to be out-of-
control, you must report both the audit results showing your COMS to
be out-of-control and the results of the audit following corrective
action showing your COMS to be operating within specifications, and
    (5) Summary of all corrective actions you took when you
determined your COMS was out-of-control.
    10.11 Where and how long must I retain the QA data that this
procedure requires me to record for my COMS? You must keep the
records required by this procedure for your COMS onsite and
available for inspection by us, the State, and/or the local
enforcement agency for the period specified in the regulations
requiring the use of COMS.

11.0 What analytical procedures apply to this procedure? [Reserved]

12.0 What calculations and data analysis must I perform for my
COMS?

    The calculations required for the performance audit are in
section 12.0 of PS-1.

13.0 Method Performance [Reserved]

14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]

15.0 Waste Management [Reserved]

16.0 References

    16.1 Performance Specification 1-Specifications and Test
Procedures for Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems in Stationary
Sources, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B.
    16.2 ASTM D 6216-98, 03, 07-Standard Practice for Opacity
Monitor Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with Design and
Performance Specifications, American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM).

17.0 What Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data Are
Relevant to This Procedure?

                                                                17.1. Table 17-1--Diagnostic Tests Required After Various Repairs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Clear path                                                     7-Day zero
                                                  Optical                   (off-                                 Fault     Averaging     and up-                New MCOC
                                      Optical    alignment      Zero       stack)      Upscale    Calibration    status       period       scale     Recertify  per ASTM D
       Description of event         align-ment   indicator  calibration     zero     calibration  error check   indicator  calculation     drift     per PS-1    6216-98,         Comments
                                                assessment     check     assessment     check                     check        and         check                    07
                                                 (Note 1)                 (Note 3)                                          recording    (Note 2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Replace or repair components            X          --            X          --            X           --           X           --          --          --          --   Includes replacement
 described as routine and/or                                                                                of blower, cleaning
 preventative maintenance..                                                                                optical surfaces,
                                                                                resetting
                                                                                adjustable
                                                                                parameters to
                                                                                maintain normal
                                                                                performance, etc.

(2) Replace or repair primary               X           X            X           X            X            X           X           --          --          --          --   Light source
 measurement light..                                                                                uniformity and
                                                                                position are key
                                                                                source to many
                                                                                performance
                                                                                parameters.
(3) Replace or repair components            X          --            X          --            X   ...........          X           --          --          --          --   See text
 which are measurement                                                                                description,
 noncritical..                                                                                section 10.5(2).
(4) Replace or repair components            X           X            X           X            X            X           X           --           X          --          --   See test
 which are measurement critical..                                                                                description,
                                                                                section 10.5(3).
(5) Replace or repair components           --          --            X          --            X            X           X            X          --          --          --   Includes changes of
 which are measurement critical                                                                                components
 but do not involve optical or                                                                                involving data
 electro-optical components..                                                                                acquisition and
                                                                                recording.
(6) Rebuild or substantially               --          --           --          --           --           --          --           --          --           X          --   See text
 refurbish the analyzer..                                                                                description,
                                                                                section 10.5(4).
(7) Change to, or addition of,             --          --           --          --           --           --          --           --          --           X           X   Significant changes
 analyzer components which may                                                                                which are not part
 affect MCOC-specified performance                                                                                of the MCOC-
 parameters..                                                                                designated
                                                                                configuration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: (1) Optical alignment indicator assessment requires the operator to verify during an off the stack clear path zero assessment that the beam is centered on the reflector/retro reflector
  when the alignment indicator indicates on-axis centered alignment. If not, the analyzer optical train must be adjusted until this condition is met.
(2) 7-Day zero and upscale drift assessment. Opacity measurement data recorded prior to completion of the 7-day drift test will be considered as valid provided that the first 7-day drift test
  is successful, that it is completed within 14 days of completion of the repair, and that other QA requirements are met during this time period.
(3) Requires verification of the external zero-jig response, or recalibration of the same, after the off-stack clear path zero has been re-established.

[FR Doc. 2012-3379 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Respondent Burden

Respondents
Responses
Hours
O&M/Capital Costs
Total Annual Cost
Private Sector*
111
111
23,965
$5,735,647
$7,298,527
State Agencies**
48
48
961
$0
$602,747
Total
159
159
24,926
$5,735,647
$7,901,274
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*See Exhibit 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** See Exhibit 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The overall annual burden associated with the Part B requirements is 24,926 hours, represents an increase of 1,257 hours under the previous version of this ICR.  This difference is due to the larger number of affected facilities, based on the current information and reporting requirements from the RCRAInfo database. The non-labor cost burden for this renewal increased by $2,943,843. This increase was due to a miscalculation of the non-labor cost for the previous ICR.  The estimate for this renewal is more consistent with past renewals.  These revisions do not reflect any change in the Part B requirements; they represent instead an updated representation of the number of respondents submitting renewal applications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6(g)	Burden Statement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 157 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0809, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

      An electronic version of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0809, and OMB Control Number 2050 - 0009 in any correspondence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20590

In the matter of:

INTRA-ALASKA CLASS						        DOCKET 14694

SERVICE MAIL RATES						        DOCKET 14695

EQUALIZATION NOTICE OF CAPE SMYTHE AIR SERIVCE, INC.

Cape Smythe Air Service, Inc., an Alaskan carrier currently authorized
to transport United States Mail, hereby gives notice of its intent to
equalize its mail rates to the lowest authorized rates legally in effect
over all routes on its system, either directly or indirectly.

By Order 2004-2-12, the Department of Transportation established a new
linehaul rate for markets where Part 121 bush service is provided by
aircraft certificated by the manufacturer for 19 seats or more on one
flight a week or more.  The language of the Order sets the rate “for
markets where a carrier scheduling and operating at least one round trip
a week with Part 121 aircraft in passenger service qualifies for the
carriage of mail”.  This language establishes a single lawful rate for
each market, and appears to obviate the need for any sort of
equalization notice.   None-the-less, with an abundance of caution,
[carrier name] hereby gives notice of its equalization to the lowest
lawful rate in any market where it operates service.

Cape Smythe equalizes its rates to the lowest rate, or combination of
rates, applicable in the markets it serves directly or by connection at
an intermediate point.

Equalization under this notice is effective immediately, and is
effective for an indefinite period.  This notice will remain in effect
until terminated by written notice filed at least ten days in advance.

Whereas Cape Smythe gives this notice of equalization of its mail rates,
Cape Smythe requests equitable tender and full tender of bypass mail
pursuant to the provisions of the Rural Service Improvement Act and the
practices and procedures of the Department of Transportation and the
United States Postal Service.

Respectfully submitted,

Grant Thompson

Grant Thompson

President, Cape Smythe Air Service, Inc.

February 17, 2004


[Federal Register: March 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 58)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13337-13339]
[DOCID:fr27mr09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0270; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-30-AD;
Amendment 39-15865; AD 2009-07-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton Sundstrand Propellers Model
568F Propellers

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Hamilton Sundstrand Propellers model 568F propellers with certain part
number (P/N) and serial number (SN) blades. This AD requires removing
affected propeller blades from service for rework. This AD results from
reports of blades with corrosion pits in the tulip area of the blades.
We are issuing this AD to prevent cracks from developing in the tulip
area of the blade, which could result in separation of the blade and
loss of airplane control.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 1, 2009.
    We must receive any comments on this AD by May 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this AD:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Docket Management Facility, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Hamilton Sundstrand Propeller Technical Team, One Hamilton
Road, Mail Stop 1-3-AB43, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010; fax (860) 654-
5107, for the service information identified in this AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Fahr, Aerospace Engineer, Boston
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We have received reports of corrosion on six
propeller blades. A lack of adhesive and primer beyond the end of the
compression wrap during manufacturing of certain serial-numbered
propeller blades could result in corrosion pits developing in the tulip
area of the propeller blade. This condition, if not corrected, could
cause cracks in the tulip area, which could result in separation of the
propeller blade and possible loss of airplane control.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    Although no airplanes that are registered in the United States use
these propellers, the possibility exists that the propellers could be
used on airplanes that are registered in the United States in the
future. The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or
develop on other Hamilton Sundstrand Propellers model 568F propellers
of the same type design. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracks from
developing in the tulip area of the blade, which could result in
separation of the blade and loss of airplane control. This AD requires
removing from service, Hamilton Sundstrand Propellers model 568F
propellers, with a P/N and SN listed in Table 1 of this AD, within 30
days after the effective date of this AD.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since no domestic operators use this product, notice and
opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.
Therefore, we are adopting this regulation immediately.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment; however, we invite you to send us any written relevant data,
views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``AD Docket No. FAA-2009-0270;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-30-AD'' in the subject line of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify it.
    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
with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of the
Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets,
including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment
(or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the same as
the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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 have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal
Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2009-07-06 Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation: Amendment 39-15865.
Docket No. FAA-2009-0270; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-30-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 1,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Hamilton Sundstrand Propellers model 568F
propellers with blades, part numbers (P/Ns) R815505R2, R815505R3,
R815505R4, R815505S2, and R815505S3, that have a serial number (SN)
listed in Table 1 of this AD, installed. These propellers are
installed on, but not limited to, ATR-GIE Avions de Transport
Regional ATR-42-400 and -500, ATR72-210A, -500, and Construcciones
Aeronauticas, S.A. C-295 airplanes.

                Table 1--Affected Propeller Blades by SN
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                31
                                                33
                                                34
                                                37
                                                40
                                                43
                                               105
                                               230
                                               259
                                               265
                                               277

                                               278
                                               403
                                               747
                                              1007
                                              1031
                                              1510
                                              1515
                                              1803
                                              1813
                                              1823
                                              1834
                                              1917
                                              2072
                                              2299
                                              2300
                                              2383
                                              2459
                                              2460
                                              2462
                                              2464
                                              2469
                                              2470
                                              2473
                                              2492
                                              2510
                                              2535
                                              2577
                                              2625
                                          20010731
                                          20010732
                                          20010917
                                          20020568
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of blades with corrosion pits
in the tulip area of the blades. We are issuing this AD to prevent
cracks from developing in the tulip area of the blade, which could
result in separation of the blade and loss of airplane control.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

Removing Blades P/Ns R815505R2, R815505R3, R815505R4, R815505S2, and
R815505S3

    (f) Remove from service blades, P/Ns R815505R2, R815505R3,
R815505R4, R815505S2, and R815505S3, that have a SN listed in Table
1 of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (g) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, has the
authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD
if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Special Flight Permits

    (h) Under 14 CFR 39.23, we will not issue any special flight
permits.

Related Information

    (i) Hamilton Sundstrand Alert Service Bulletin 568F-61-A47,
dated September 19, 2005, pertains to the subject of this AD Contact
Hamilton Sundstrand Propeller Technical Team, One Hamilton Road,
Mail Stop 1-3-AB43, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010; fax (860) 654-
5107, for a copy of this service information.
    (j) Contact Terry Fahr, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 20, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-6876 Filed 3-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PM 2.5 Nonattainment Boundaries in Triad, North Carolina 1 8/ 25/ 04 Appendix C   PM2.5 / Population Density Correlation Analysis * The following analysis is the work of Hoy Bohanon, with edits made by Wyat Appel.

Hoy Bohanon, PE August 25, 2004 Bohanon Engineering PLLC PO Box 448 Clemmons, NC 27012 bohanoneng@ triad. rr. com The information about the methodology is contained in two spreadsheets containing multiple sheets and some sheets containing large amounts of data. The sheets are generally labeled " PM2.5 DESIGNATIONS DATA SPREADSHEET  6/ 14/ 04."

The author assumes that data in these spreadsheets contains the best available data. It appears that EPA prejudged the data with a conclusion that nonattainment monitors must be influenced by 80% of the total emissions in immediately surrounding counties and in some cases such as the Triad counties that may be two or three counties distant. There was some attempt to make a correction for background by an " urban excess" calculation that applied weighting factors to emissions data. Some unknown algorithm created values for carbon and crustal which were then weighted and combined with SO2 and NOx to determine the weighted emissions score. Wind patterns are not considered.

The measured data that exist for the Triad and surrounding counties ( as selected by EPA) is shown in the table below. Counties with missing data are omitted.

Design Values Total Emissions, 2001 ( tons)

Sequence COU ' 01' 03 Pop Density PM SO2 NOX VOC 530 Guilford 14.1 663 2,418 2,833 19,068 34,464 531 Davidson 15.8 274 1,951 1,398 11,281 14,970 532 Forsyth 14.6 768 1,559 5,885 14,552 20,679 534 Alamance 13.7 315 1,181 749 5,618 8,967 538 Chatham 12.2 79 1,714 11,605 5,823 4,734 545 Orange 13.1 301 857 756 6,264 6,751 548 Montgomery 12.1 56 516 484 1,631 4,175 549 Caswell 13.3 55 483 199 1,071 1,622 An initial basic analysis of the measured data is to determine the independent and dependent variables, ( or the potential causes and the effect) and then investigate whether there is a relationship. The effect ( dependent variable) is PM2.5 which is shown as Design PM 2.5 Nonattainment Boundaries in Triad, North Carolina 2 8/ 25/ 04 Values ( DV). It may be influenced ( independent variables) by population density ( which is a surrogate for many emissions), PM, SO2, NOx, or VOC.

Examining the Population Density The data for the immediate Triad area is:

Triad Density Design Value Guilford 663 14.1 Forsyth 768 14.6 Alamance 315 13.7 Davidson 274 15.8 Where density is people / square mile and design value is PM2.5 in µ g/ m3 Plotting the data gives PM2.5 Pop Density v. Design Value R 2 = 0.075 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Population / sm Design Value The added trend line shows that the correlation is negative. This means that higher population results in lower PM. This doesn't make sense. The correlation coefficient is very low. PM 2.5 Nonattainment Boundaries in Triad, North Carolina 3 8/ 25/ 04 A trend line that excludes the Davidson County data point results in the following:

R 2 = 0.873 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Series1 Davidson Linear ( Series1)

This is a better fit and the line shows that increasing population results in increased PM2.5. This look at the data leads to an obvious question. Is Davidson County different from the other counties in the area? To make a more informed analysis, the other surrounding counties listed in the EPA spreadsheet should be added.

Triad+ Density Design Value Guilford 663 14.1 Forsyth 768 14.6 Alamance 315 13.7 Davidson 274 15.8 Chatham 79 12.2 Orange 301 13.1 Montgomery 56 12.1 Caswell 55 13.3 PM 2.5 Nonattainment Boundaries in Triad, North Carolina 4 8/ 25/ 04 Triad PM2.5 DV Guilford Davidson Forsyth Alamance Chatham Orange Montgomery Caswell 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Pop Density DV Design Value vs Population R 2 = 0.3256 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Pop / sq mi DV With the additional data, the regression line now shows increasing PM2.5 with increasing population, but the fit isn't very good ( r2 = 0.3). PM 2.5 Nonattainment Boundaries in Triad, North Carolina 5 8/ 25/ 04 Excluding Davidson County from the regression results in the following:

Design Value vs Population R 2 = 0.7752 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Pop / sq mi DV Triad+

Davidson Linear ( Triad+)

The fit is much better. The intercept corresponds closely to what EPA used as the background value in its urban excess calculation. The intercept of the regression line ( value where the population equals zero) is 12.4. In the urban excess calculation EPA appears to have used a value of 12.2 from James River Face, VA for a background ( zero population) number for the Triad. The two numbers are quite close.

The question arises, is there something different about Davidson County? Is it an outlier in terms of the surrounding area? An initial determination can be made by determining the 95% confidence interval around the Triad+ ( excluding Davidson) data points.

Design Value vs Population 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Pop / sq mi DV Triad+ Davidson LCI UCI Linear ( Triad+) Linear ( LCI) Linear ( UCI) PM 2.5 Nonattainment Boundaries in Triad, North Carolina 6 8/ 25/ 04 The Triad+ data set ( not including Davidson) is bounded by a 95% upper confidence interval and a 95% lower confidence interval. Points within these intervals are statistically likely ( with 95% confidence) to be a part of the same data set. Davidson County clearly falls outside of this data set.

One may logically conclude based upon the data, that the other counties exhibit an increased design value due to increased population ( which appears to be a decent surrogate for increased cars, commerce, jobs, etc.).

One may also conclude that Davidson County is different from all other counties.

It is therefore appropriate to " single out" Davidson County and begin the process of determining what makes its PM2.5 concentration higher. It is inappropriate to include any of the other counties adjacent to or surrounding Davidson in a nonattainment designation. Their design values all attain the current standard and there is no evidence that the contribution to each other is significant. Their differences can be explained by the " local effect" of population. Davidson has some unexplained " local effect" making it unique among the counties in the Triad area of North Carolina.

Additional Analysis One may ask whether or not the other possible input factors such as PM give similar results. Is there another measured component that closely correlates to the design values? The answer is no. The following table lists the R square values for the data set excluding Davidson County. Higher values indicate better correlation. Lower values indicate lack of correlation.

Component R square Population density 0.77 PM 0.20 SO2 0.02 NOx 0.52 VOC 0.50 Could two factors be involved? The stepwise procedure for multiple linear regression is to add the next factor highest r square factor to the analysis. A multiple linear regression using population density combined with NOx shows NOx to not be a significant factor. ( p= 0.32).


[Federal Register: November 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 70751]
[DOCID:fr18no10-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12690-003]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, WA; Notice of
Teleconference

November 10, 2010.
    a. Date and Time of Meeting: Monday, November 15, 2010 starting at
12 p.m. and ending by 2 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
    b. FERC Contact: David Turner,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    c. Purpose of Meeting: Commission staff will meet with the
Snohomish County Public Utility District (District) to clarify the
Commission's August 6, 2010, request for additional information on the
District's draft license application for the Admiralty Inlet Pilot
Tidal Project, which would be located in the Puget Sound, in
Washington.
    d. If you would like to attend the meeting or have any questions,
contact David Turner via e-mail by November 11, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29060 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P