[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66269-66270]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0369]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Republic Services; Application for
Exemption

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has received an application from
Republic Services requesting an exemption from the requirement that
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) qualifying for the ``short-
haul'' exception must return to the original work reporting location
and be released within 12 hours of coming on duty. Republic Services
asks that its short-haul CMV drivers be permitted to return within 14
hours without losing their short-haul status. Furthermore, Republic
Services requests relief from the current electronic logging device
(ELD) regulations for its affiliated companies. FMCSA requests public
comment on the Republic Services application for exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2018-0369 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
of this notice. DOT posts all comments received without change to
www.regulations.gov, including personal information in a comment.
Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments, go to
www.regulations.gov or visit Room W12-140 on the ground level of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS) at www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, please contact Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2018-0369), the specific section of this document to
which the comment applies, and provide reasons for suggestions or
recommendations. You may submit online or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that
you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
phone number in your document so the Agency can contact you if it has
questions about your submission.
    To submit your comments online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2018-0369'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Submit a
Formal Comment'' button and type your comment into the text box in the
following screen. Indicate whether you are submitting your comment as
an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA

will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period and may grant or deny this application based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    Drivers qualifying for the hours-of-service (HOS) short-haul
exception in 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1) do not have to maintain a record of
duty status (RODS) on board the vehicle provided that (among other
things) they return to their normal work reporting location and are
released from work within 12 hours after coming on duty. A driver who
exceeds the 12-hour limit loses the short-haul exception and must
prepare RODS immediately for the entire day, often by means of an
electronic logging device (ELD)(49 CFR 395.8(a)(1)(i)).
    Republic Services seeks an exemption for approximately 16,000 CMVs
and approximately 15,500 drivers. Republic Services is a leading
provider of non-hazardous solid waste collection, transfer, disposal,
recycling and other environmental services, operating in more than 40
states and Puerto Rico. It is one of the largest such fleets in the
country. Republic Services drivers qualify routinely for the short-haul
exception in Sec.  395.1(e)(1), however, occasionally they cannot
complete their duty day within 12 hours. Republic Services therefore
seeks an exemption to allow its drivers to continue to qualify for the
short-haul exception up to the 14th hour after coming on duty. In
conjunction with this request, Republic Services requests further
relief from the electronic logging device (ELD) requirements for their
affiliated companies, which they state in their application is
reasonable and consistent with current exemptions FMCSA has granted.
    Republic Services states that the 14-hour rule is appropriate to
certain industries and operations, including sanitation/solid waste and
recycling collection. According to the applicant, the HOS regulations
recognize the reasonableness of a 14-hour, rather than a 12-hour,
return/release period in appropriate transport industries and other
operations. Section 395.1(e)(1)(ii)(B) in the Federal regulations
codifies the statutory 14-hour short-haul period for ready-mixed
concrete drivers, and other subparts of the rules provide industry-
specific HOS exemptions for certain operations, including oilfield
operations and pipeline welding trucks. Republic Services' CMV drivers
on solid waste and recycling routes generally meet the current short-
haul exemption requirements and utilize the exception to written
records of duty status (RODS). Exceptions to this that can occur are
usually by no fault of the driver. Increasing the requirement to 14
hours will ensure that Republic Services' CMV drivers will meet the
requirements of the short-haul operations exception in nearly all
cases.
    Regarding the other portion of its application for exemption,
Republic Services indicates that ELDs were not designed for short-haul
CMVs and that application of ELDs to CMVs that operate within a 100-
mile radius and make multiple stops represents an inefficient use of
ELD technology. The devices may work well for long-haul trucking
because these drivers operate the controls of their CMVs for extended
periods of time without need to stop multiple times during a single
shift. Unlike sanitation truck drivers, long-haul drivers are not away
from the controls of their CMVs for significant periods of time during
a shift. In contrast, Republic Services' solid waste and recycling
collection drivers make numerous stops per shift and spend significant
portions of their day performing a non-driving function. Its short-haul
drivers have an average route distance of between 85 and 180 miles,
much of which is generated when traveling to and from their service
areas as opposed to servicing customers/collecting waste and
recyclables from containers. On average, Republic's drivers spend
approximately 30-50% of their on-duty time servicing customer
containers as opposed to driving.
    Republic Services further notes that on two prior occasions this
year, FMCSA has recognized the reasonableness of extending the 14-hour
return/release rule allowed the ready-mixed concrete industry to other
industries. In January, the agency granted the application for
exemption filed by the National Asphalt Paving Association, Inc.
(NAPA), permitting CMV drivers transporting asphalt and related
materials to return to the reporting location and be released within
14, instead of 12 hours [83 FR 3864]. In October, FMCSA granted Waste
Management's (WM) similar request, recognizing the extension of the 14-
hour rule to the solid waste/recycling drivers of a sanitation industry
participant like Republic Services [83 FR 53940].

IV. Equivalent Level of Safety

    To ensure an equivalent level of safety, Republic Services offers
extensive formal classroom and field operations training. Its
application references a company safety program that concentrates on
driver's attention and the most common risks associated with sanitation
driver operations. Republic uses one-on-one in-cab observations in
which its collection operations supervisors ride along with short-haul
CMV drivers on their routes, providing real time coaching and feedback.
According to Republic, these in-cab observations create positive
relationships with the drivers where concerns such as hours, safety,
and fatigue are addressed. Republic states that it covers increasing
driver awareness about safety and fatigue and associated dangers and
how to avoid and mitigate fatigue and remain alert behind the wheel.
Republic Services utilizes event data recording devices to cover
potential safety risks.
    Republic Services requests a 5-year exemption. Republic Services'
application for exemption, including a list of its 71 affiliated
operating companies, is available for review in the docket for this
notice.

    Issued on: November 22, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-26096 Filed 12-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29125-29126]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09607]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1773-000.
    Applicants: Pomona Energy Storage 2 LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Petition for Approval of
Initial Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5220.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1774-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Cross-Sound Cable Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff
filing per 35: Second Compliance Filing for Order No. 676-J; Revisions
to Schedule 18 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5223.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1775-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Alabama Power Company submits
tariff filing per 35: OATT Attachment O Order No. 676-J Compliance
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5235.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1776-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Alabama Power Company
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: OATT Attachment C Amendment
Filing to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5236.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1777-000.
    Applicants: Diamond Retail Energy, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of Market-
Based Rate Tariff to be effective 6/30/2023.

    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5238.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1778-000.
    Applicants: Diamond Energy East, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of Market-
Based Rate Tariff to be effective 6/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5239.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1779-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Alabama Power Company
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: OATT Attachment T--Amendment
Filing to be effective 7/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5240.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1780-000.
    Applicants: Diamond Energy NE, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of Market-
Based Rate Tariff to be effective 6/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5241.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1781-000.
    Applicants: Diamond Energy NY, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of Market-
Based Rate Tariff to be effective 6/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5242.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1782-000.
    Applicants: Versant Power.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 676-J Compliance Filing
and Request for Waivers 5-1-2023 to be effective 8/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5243.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1783-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: NYISO compliance filing and waiver
request re: FERC Order 676-J to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5245.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1784-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 676-J Compliance
Revisions to Tariff, Section 4.2 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5264.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1785-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Eversource Energy Service Company
(as agent), National Grid Service Company Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff
filing per 35: Order 676-J; Second Compliance Filing--Schedules 20A and
21 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5269.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1786-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 4058 Missouri Electric
Commission NITSA NOA to be effective 4/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5273.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1787-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reimbursement Agrmt--AIC and
PPI Gillett Rate Schedule 158 to be effective 5/2/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5293.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES23-43-000.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Filed Date: 4/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230428-5660.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF23-886-000.
    Applicants: 2014 ESA Project Company, LLC.
    Description: Form 556 of 2014 ESA Project Company, LLC
[Middletown].
    Filed Date: 4/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230428-5611.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 1, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09607 Filed 5-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49156-49158]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17538]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-8435; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-049-AD;
Amendment 39-18594; AD 2016-15-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This AD
was prompted by reports of operator inability to open the main
passenger door following severe hot soak conditions. This AD requires
the incorporation of a new configuration to the passenger door external
handle detent to enhance the performance across the full range of the
airplane operating temperatures. We are issuing this AD to prevent
thermal expansion and permanent deformation at severe hot soak
conditions, creating high friction between the spring pot housing and
the slider that could result in inability to open the main passenger
door and impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

DATES: This AD is effective August 31, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 31,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.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<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
8435.

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-2015-
8435; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar A. Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1584) (``the NPRM''). The
NPRM was prompted by reports of operator inability to open the main
passenger door following severe hot soak conditions. The NPRM proposed
to require the incorporation of a new configuration to the passenger
door external handle detent to enhance the performance across the full
range of the airplane operating temperatures. We are issuing this AD to
prevent thermal expansion and permanent deformation at severe hot soak
conditions, creating high friction between the spring pot housing and
the slider that could result in inability to open the main passenger
door and impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2015-03, dated March 13, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-
700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been reports where operators experienced an inability
to open the main passenger door following severe hot soak
conditions.
    Investigation determined that the nylon slider in the plunger
assembly of the door handle is susceptible to thermal expansion

and permanent deformation at severe hot soak conditions, creating
high friction between the spring pot housing and the slider.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in an inability
to open the main passenger door and could impede evacuation in the
event of an emergency.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of a new
configuration to the passenger door external handle detent to
enhance the performance across the full range of the aeroplanes
operating temperatures.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
8435.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier issued the following service Information:
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-021, Revision 01,
dated February 3, 2015.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-044, Revision 01, dated
February 3, 2015.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-5008, Revision 01,
dated February 3, 2015.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-6008, Revision 01,
dated February 3, 2015.
    The service information describes procedures to incorporate a new
configuration to the passenger door external handle detent. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 60 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this 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 AD on
U.S. operators to be $20,400, or $340 per product.

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 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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2016-15-03 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18594. Docket No. FAA-
2015-8435; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-049-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 31, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-
1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns)
9002 through 9515 inclusive and S/N 9998.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of operator inability to open
the main passenger door following severe hot soak conditions. We are
issuing this AD to prevent thermal expansion and permanent
deformation at severe hot soak conditions, creating high friction
between the spring pot housing and the slider that could result in
inability to open the main passenger door that could impede
evacuation in the event of an emergency.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD,
incorporate the new configuration to the passenger door external
handle detent, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (g)(4) of this AD:
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-021, Revision 01,
dated February 3, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-044, Revision 01, dated
February 3, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-5008, Revision 01, dated
February 3, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).
    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-6008, Revision 01, dated
February 3, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using the following service information, as
applicable. This service information is not incorporated by
reference in this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-021, dated November
9, 2012.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-044, dated November 9,
2012.
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-5008, dated November 9,
2012.
    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-6008, dated November 9,
2012.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-03, dated March 26, 2015,
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-2015-8435.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-021, Revision 01,
dated February 3, 2015.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-044, Revision 01, dated
February 3, 2015.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-5008, Revision 01,
dated February 3, 2015.
    (iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-6008, Revision 01, dated
February 3, 2015.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 19, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-17538 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73462-73465]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29134]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1024; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-140-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301,
-311, and -315 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of a
fractured wing-to-fuselage strut attachment joint bolt. This proposed
AD would require doing a torque check of all wing-to-fuselage strut
attachment joint bolts, and repairing or replacing if necessary. For
certain airplanes this proposed AD would require a detailed inspection
for corrosion, damage, and wear of each wing-to-fuselage strut
attachment joint bolt and associated hardware, and replacing if
necessary; and a borescope inspection for corrosion and damage of the
bore hole and barrel nut threads, and repairing or replacing if
necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fractured
bolts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing-
to-fuselage strut attachment joint and subsequent loss of the wing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 21,
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
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Zimmer, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; 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-2013-1024;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-140-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

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2013-17R1, dated June 27, 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:

    There have been two in-service reports of a wing-to-fuselage
strut attachment joint bolt found fractured during routine
maintenance. Laboratory examination of one fractured bolt revealed
that the fracture was attributed to stress corrosion cracking.
    Failure of the bolts could compromise the structural integrity
of the wing-to-fuselage strut attachment joint and could lead to a
subsequent loss of the wing.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection and rectification, as
required, of the wing-to-fuselage strut attachment joint bolts and
associated hardware.
* * * * *
Required actions include doing a torque check of wing-to-fuselage strut
attachment joint bolts, and repairing or replacing if necessary. For
certain airplanes, required actions include a detailed inspection for
corrosion, damage (including but not limited to scratching, cracking,
pitting, cross threads, etc.), and wear of each wing-to-fuselage strut
attachment joint bolt and associated hardware, and replacement if
necessary; and a borescope inspection for corrosion and damage of the
bore hole and barrel nut threads, and repair or replacement if
necessary. 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-2013-1024.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-57-47, Revision A, dated
May 29, 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.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    In many FAA transport ADs, when the service information specifies
to contact the manufacturer for further instructions if certain
discrepancies are found, we typically include in the AD a requirement
to accomplish the action using a method approved by either the FAA or
the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent).
    We have recently been notified that certain laws in other countries
do not allow such delegation of authority, but some countries do
recognize design approval organizations. In addition, we have become
aware that some U.S. operators have used repair instructions that were
previously approved by a State of Design Authority or a Design Approval
Holder (DAH) as a method of compliance with this provision in FAA ADs.
Frequently, in these cases, the previously approved repair instructions
come from the airplane structural repair manual or the DAH repair
approval statements that were not specifically developed to address the
unsafe condition corrected by the AD. Using repair instructions that
were not specifically approved for a particular AD creates the
potential for doing repairs that were not developed to address the
unsafe condition identified by the MCAI AD, the FAA AD, or the
applicable service information, which could result in the unsafe
condition not being fully corrected.
    To prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed
to correct the unsafe condition, this proposed AD would require that
the repair approval specifically refer to the FAA AD. This change is
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 use the
phrase ``its delegated agent, or by the DAH with State of Design
Authority design organization approval, as applicable'' in this
proposed AD to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs
for this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 94 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD.
    We also estimate that it would take about 107 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 $5,476 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,369,674, or $14,571 per
product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the repairs or replacements 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 proposed 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. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2013-1024; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-140-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 21, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106,
-201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes; certificated in any
category; serial numbers 003 through 672 inclusive.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of a fractured wing-to-fuselage
strut attachment joint bolt. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct fractured bolts, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the wing-to-fuselage strut attachment joint and
subsequent loss of the wing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Torque Check

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)
of this AD: Do a torque check of the wing-to-fuselage strut
attachment joint bolts, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-57-47, Revision A,
dated May 29, 2013.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 40,000 total
flight cycles, and have less than 15 years in service since new, as
of the effective date of this AD: Do the torque check before the
accumulation of 42,000 total flight cycles, or within 16 years in
service since new, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated 40,000 total flight
cycles or more, or have 15 years or more in service since new, as of
the effective date of this AD: Do the torque check within 2,000
flight cycles or 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first.

(h) Inspection and Corrective Actions

    (1) If only one bolt fails the torque check, before further
flight, replace the bolt, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-57-47, Revision A,
dated May 29, 2013; and before further flight do the actions
specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD.
    (2) If more than one bolt fails the torque check, before further
flight, repair, using a method approved by the Manager, New York
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA) (or its delegated agent or by the Design Approval
Holder with the TCCA design organization approval). For a repair
method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer
to this AD.
    (3) If all bolts pass the torque check, before further flight,
do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of
this AD, as applicable.
    (i) Do a detailed inspection for corrosion, damage (including
but not limited to scratching, cracking, pitting, and cross threads,
etc.), and wear, of each wing-to-fuselage strut attachment joint
bolt and associated hardware, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-57-47, Revision A,
dated May 29, 2013. If any bolt or hardware has corrosion, damage,
or wear, before further flight, replace the affected part, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 8-57-47, Revision A, dated May 29, 2013.
    (ii) Do a borescope inspection for corrosion and damage
(including but not limited to scratching, cracking, pitting, and
cross threads, etc.) of the bore hole and barrel nut threads, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 8-57-47, Revision A, dated May 29, 2013, except as
provided by paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (A) If any corrosion or damage is found in the barrel nut
threads, before further flight, replace the barrel nut, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 8-57-47, Revision A, dated May 29, 2013, except as
provided by paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (B) If any corrosion or damage is found in the bore of the hole,
before further flight, repair, using a method approved by the
Manager, New York ACO, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation
(TCCA) (or its delegated agent or by the Design Approval Holder with
the TCCA design organization approval). For a repair method to be
approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Exception to Service Information

    Where Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-57-47, Revision A, dated May
29, 2013, specifies to contact the manufacturer for repair
information, this AD requires repairing before further flight using
a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, FAA; or TCCA (or its
delegated agent, or by the Design Approval Holder with TCCA design
organization approval). For a repair method to be approved, the
repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service
Bulletin 8-57-47, dated March 16, 2012.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to
ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York
ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone
516-228-7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they
are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if
they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its
delegated agent, or by the Design Approval Holder with a State of
Design Authority's design organization approval). For a repair
method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer
to this AD. You are required to ensure the product is airworthy
before it is returned to service.

(l) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-17R1, dated June 27,
2013, for related information, which can be found in the AD docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-1024.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 29, 2013.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-29134 Filed 12-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

Project No.: 0<IP_ADDRESS>

DISTRIBUTION

Page _1_ of  _3_

Project Name: 304m – Coal Mining Detailed Study

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

	  Outgoing Call

Date: 07/25/2007

Time: 2:15 PM

Company Name: PA Department of Environmental Protection

Contact Name:   Joe Pizarchik

Phone No.:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Name:  Cal Franz and Nyssa Schloyer

GENERAL SUBJECT :  Performance Bond Laws, Liability, and Costs
Associated with Acid Mine Drainage

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 2:15 pm, we called Mr. Joe Pizarchik of the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) to discuss:
PA’s reclamation bond program, operator liability, post mining
liability, bond forfeiture, and reclamation costs associated with Acid
Mine Drainage.

What is the liability of the operator once the mine closed but AMD
starts after bond release?

Do you have problems going after operators after the fact (e.g.,
spinning off shell companies that are dissolved after mining is finished
leaving no entity with responsibility)?

We have seen companies with permits and discharges who saw costs getting
high so parent company spun off, and that particular entity went
bankrupt; another case where principals bailed out and that company was
overwhelmed by cost, and did not have adequate assets to provide for
reclamation.

Sometimes a company appears to set up related company and diverts assets
out of company liable for discharges.  PA is exploring the possibility
of prosecuting one company for fraudulent transfer of assets in order to
avoid liability.  One partnership not actively mining coal diverted
assets to trust for relatives; PA is trying to convince them that they
need to put up the appropriate money to take care of discharges.  Does
not know of any specific incidences of AMD starting after mine and
operator closed, so no responsible entity existed, but its possible that
may have occurred years ago and he is not familiar.

He can think of 4 cases where this is an issue, but can’t really
characterize it relative to all mines; haven’t examined it with enough
detail to characterize whether just a few operators or not. Certainly
not isolated incidents but doesn’t have numbers or percentages.

As long as companies mine coal they will figure out a way to treat the
discharges in the time period; the problem is making sure that after
they finish there is money in place.

If a company forfeits a permit they are out of coal mining nationwide.

Sole proprietors are the ones that are going to go out of business from
bonding or treatment costs.

PA working on getting sites permitted with active treatment or
additional bonds posted.  Used to have an alternate bonding system;
switched to full cost bonding and also working to get sites with
discharges appropriately bonded or to set up trust funds; its an ongoing
process, but they’ve had a fair amount of success with it. 4-5 years
ago they estimated PA had 270 treatment facilities and 400 discharges
for 128 different operators.  They’ve currently finalized agreements
with 68 operators for 169 treatment facilities and 244 discharges; 40
operators have entered agreements to post additional bonds of
$108million, 14 fully funded trusts of $44 million; 11 or so more
entered consent orders, which when fully funded will be $44 million.

Probably 1-2 dozen incidences where mining company lost resources with
no money left to provide for liability.  To say that it’s a majority
would be questionable.

PA has a rule making currently in process: under former alternate
bonding system for surface coal miners, operator paid a per acre
reclamation fee for every area permitted of $50 to $100 (in addition to
alternate bond).  Didn’t generate the income necessary to make up
difference between bond amounts and reclamation cost; clear system was
doomed to collapse so PA went to full cost bonding.  PA currently trying
to eliminate the per acre reclamation fee in this rule making, plus
other amendments required under federal surface mining (note: after this
teleconference, PA lost court decision allowing them to eliminate this
fee).

Regulations state that if AMD is a probable consequence of mining, that
permit will not be issued; how probable?  The operator has to
demonstrate and PADEP find no potential pollution to waters of
commonwealth: any evidence of discharge – then no permit issued.  The
burden of proof is on the applicant to show that no evidence exists.  A
number of ways to prove: primary way to demonstrate is to do a certain
amount of testing, and through core boring analysis and analysis of
overburden, look for toxic rocks and alkalinity to prevent discharge –
if conditions not met then permit application is denied.  PADEP has
worked with various scientists to develop modeling tools.  Science has
evolved since the early ‘90s when most mines end up with discharge.
More currently down to less than 1-2 percent of permits resulting in
discharges, and those discharges are more mild in nature, lower flow,
metals and not acidic, easily treatable.

Biggest AMD problems left over from last century – it’s really a
legacy issue.  Science is still not perfect in predicting AMD, but
biggest problem is from last century.

Was there was a big jump in forfeiture rates when state went to full
cost bonding?

No, for a couple of reasons:  looking at change in bonding system, PA
was concerned that new bond amount would lead to more forfeitures and
make situation worse.  Department and PA worked with the industry and
general assembly.  Based on historic rate of 10% of forfeiture and
current number of operators, to keep companies from having to go out of
business from not being able to afford bonds, general assembly
appropriated $7 million to underwrite bonds for additional amount up to
$70million.  Some operators went ahead and got bonds from sureties or
collateral bonds, others purchased from state: $63 million in liability
from state.  Program prevented increase in bond forfeiture.  Also
somewhat fortunate because an increase in coal prices helped companies
avoid financial difficulty.

Current rate of forfeiture fluctuates wildly over last 10 years; reasons
are complicated.  Doesn’t know the current rate of forfeiture but
it’s been fairly stable lately; still sees some jumps.

Was forfeiture related to AMD treatment costs?

Not aware of whether analysis is available regarding reasons for
forfeiture.  Can think of some cases where forfeiture related to AMD,
but can’t really say overall; no data available.  Bars and Tucker: big
company closure directly attributable to AMD. Al Hamilton bankruptcy for
AMD – trust set up for most of treatment. C&J Coal Company thinks
closed because of water treatment costs.

A large percentage of forfeitures are probably due to water costs,
sometimes a combination of both water and land.  We would need to look
at sites: approximately 100 primacy bond forfeiture sites.  Ratio of
land liability versus water liability hasn’t been tracked, but thinks
it is fairly high.  He doesn’t have any numbers on manganese costs and
contribution to forfeiture.  Treating manganese discharge is an issue;
often times this significantly increases the cost of treatment, and
sometimes even doubles cost of treating. This has probably contributed
to forfeiture in a number of instances.  Mine operators do not let them
into financial details, and some things are so intertwined, and
companies long gone, that there’s no way to determine contributions of
manganese to forfeiture.

There was difficulty for operators getting bonds even prior to full cost
bonding.  Initially state didn’t have much experience in how to
calculate net present value of bond or trust fund to pay for treatment.
Surface mines can’t get bond released until they’ve completed
reclamation.  PA was holding a couple hundred million dollars in bonds
for several operators because of this, and the bond market was
tightening up.  Sureties didn’t want on water liability forever; for 5
years mining permit only a couple of sureties are writing in PA. Some
operators left PA with no hopes of getting bond released.

PA started to figure out how to calculate net present value of bond or
trust fund to pay for future treatment costs, so now PA could put
pressure on operator to appropriately fund future treatment costs.
Operators started to see potential for bond release.  Bond market
started loosening in the last 4-5 years due to figuring out how to
calculate bonds and trust funds appropriately, and maybe a combination
of other factors too.

Based on methodology and state law, if bond forfeited goes to state
treasury and earns state treasurer low interest rate; that means net
present value of bond is higher than net present value of trust.  With
trust, operator is allowed a more aggressive investment strategy; trust
fund amount was less than bond amount – maybe only half as much.
Operators agreed to put up additional bonds/trusts.

Permits last for 5 years: assume worst case scenario of permit
forfeiture on last day; calculate net present value over 6 years to last
day of 6th year, to determine bond amount to treat into perpetuity.  At
end of 5th year revisit and recalculate whether additional bonds are
required to be posted.

Pattern of mine ownership: most are corporations – some are still mom
and pops.  One pattern prevalent throughout industry – most companies
are set up not to retain assets: one company owns coal, a 2nd applies
for the permit, a 3rd mines the coal using equipment leased from a 4th
company; but same 2 or 3 principals for all 4 companies.  Its set up
this way to insulate from liabilities; it spreads out assets and makes
assets easier to take out so that there aren’t a lot of assets to deal
with: that’s the reason to have a good bonding program.

Sureties are reluctant to bond mining companies that aren’t large and
openly traded, because they cannot accurately predict financial
stability out more than a couple of years.

Under PA law, the company with permit and company operating site are
liable for AMD.  Its almost impossible to pierce the corporate veil and
go after shareholders and officers individually, and its difficult to
impose personal liability.

You do not need to show any knowledge of mining to get a permit, just
need to have no record of other forfeiture, a mining license, and no
connections to other bad actors.  Don’t need assets to begin with; no
need to demonstrate financial wherewithal to mine, just need the
resources to put up the bond

Need to return call by         /         at/between         and
.	Signature:


[Federal Register: November 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 59590-59592]
[DOCID:fr18no09-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60975; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-83]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the
Grail American Beacon International Equity ETF

November 10, 2009.

    On September 18, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange''), through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade shares
(``Shares'') of the Grail American Beacon International Equity ETF
(``Fund'') under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The proposed rule
change was published in the Federal Register on October 9, 2009.\3\ The
Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order grants
approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60773 (October 2,
2009), 74 FR 52288 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the Fund
pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing of
Managed Fund Shares.\4\ The Shares will be offered by Grail Advisors'
ETF Trust (``Trust''), a statutory trust organized under the laws of
the State of Delaware and registered with the Commission as an open-end
management investment company.\5\ Grail Advisors, LLC (``Manager''), a
majority owned subsidiary of Grail Partners, LLC, is the Fund's
investment manager, and American Beacon Advisors, Inc. (``ABA'') is the
Fund's sub-adviser.\6\ In addition, Lazard Asset Management LLC,
Templeton Investment Counsel, LLC, and The Boston Company Asset
Management, LLC (collectively, ``Other Sub-Advisers'') each is a sub-
adviser to the Fund and each is affiliated with a broker-dealer. The
Exchange states that the Shares will conform to the initial and
continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 and that
the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
    \5\ The Exchange states that the Trust is registered under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``1940 Act'') and that, on April 29,
2009, the Trust filed with the Commission pre-effective Amendment
No. 3 to its registration statement on Form N-1A under the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a) and under the 1940 Act
relating to the Fund (File Nos. 333-148082 and 811-22154)
(``Registration Statement'').
    \6\ The Exchange represents that, while ABA is not affiliated
with a broker-dealer, the Manager is affiliated with a broker-
dealer, Grail Securities, LLC.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.10A-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fund's investment objective is long-term capital appreciation.
It seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80%
of its net assets (plus the amount of any borrowings for investment
purposes) in common stocks and securities convertible into common
stocks of issuers based in at least three different countries located
outside the United States. The Fund will primarily hold securities of
large capitalization companies \8\ that have last sale reporting in the
countries in which it invests and will primarily invest in countries in
the Morgan Stanley Capital International Europe Australasia Far East
Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Fund considers companies with market capitalizations of
more than $1 billion to be large capitalization companies. Thus, at
least 50% of the Fund's assets invested in securities of companies
will be in companies with market capitalizations of more than $1
billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Creations and redemptions of Fund Shares will generally be in-kind,
with a specified cash component. Authorized Participants or the
investors on whose behalf the Authorized Participants are acting
(``Investors''), however, may deliver in connection with creations or
receive in connection with redemptions cash in lieu of one or more in-
kind securities. Specifically, in connection with creations or
redemptions, an Authorized Participant or Investor may transact in
cash, in whole or in part, at the sole discretion of the Fund;
provided, however, that the cash amount delivered or received shall not
exceed 10% of the value of the in-kind creation or redemption basket,
unless the Authorized Participant or Investor is subject to legal
restrictions with respect to delivery or receipt of one or more
securities in the in-kind creation or redemption basket, or the Fund is
in a temporary defensive position. The creation unit size for the Fund
will be 50,000 Shares.
    Additional information regarding the Fund, the Shares, the Fund's
investment objective (including other non-primary investments and
investments permitted for temporary defensive purposes), investment
strategies, policies, and restrictions, risks, fees and expenses,
creations and redemptions of Shares, availability of information,
trading rules and halts, and surveillance procedures, among other
things, can be found in the Registration Statement and in the Notice,
as applicable.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra notes 3 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the
Act \10\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\
which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ In approving this proposed rule change the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 17 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares
on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the
Act, which sets forth Congress' finding that it is in the public
interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to
brokers, dealers and investors of information with respect to
quotations for and transactions in securities. Quotation and last sale
information for the Shares will be available via the Consolidated Tape
Association (``CTA'') high-speed line, and the Exchange will
disseminate the Portfolio Indicative Value (``PIV'') at least every 15
seconds during the Core Trading Session through the facilities of the
CTA. In addition, the Fund will make available on its Web site on each
business day before commencement of trading of the Core Trading Session
the Disclosed Portfolio \13\ that will form the

basis for its calculation of the net asset value (``NAV''), which will
be determined as of the close of the regular trading session on the New
York Stock Exchange (ordinarily 4 p.m. Eastern Time) on each business
day. In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the
security names and share quantities required to be delivered in
exchange for Fund Shares, together with estimates and actual cash
components, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of
the New York Stock Exchange via the National Securities Clearing
Corporation. The Fund's Web site will also include additional
quantitative information updated on a daily basis relating to trading
volume, prices, and NAV. Information regarding the market price and
trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-
time basis throughout the day via electronic services, and the previous
day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will
be published daily in the financial sections of newspapers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange represents that the Fund will disclose on the
Fund's Web site for each portfolio security or other financial
instrument of the Fund the following information: Ticker symbol (if
applicable), name of security or financial instrument, number of
shares or dollar value of financial instruments held in the
portfolio, and percentage weighting of the security or financial
instrument in the portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade
the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of
information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and
to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be
assured. The Commission notes that the Exchange will obtain a
representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share
will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio
will be made available to all market participants at the same time.
Additionally, if it becomes aware that the NAV or the Disclosed
Portfolio is not disseminated daily to all market participants at the
same time, the Exchange will halt trading in the Shares until such
information is available to all market participants. Further, if the
PIV is not being disseminated as required, the Exchange may halt
trading during the day in which the disruption occurs; if the
interruption persists past the day in which it occurred, the Exchange
will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day
following the interruption.\14\ The Exchange states that each sub-
adviser to the Fund has represented that they have implemented a ``fire
wall'' between it and its respective broker-dealer affiliate(s) with
respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or
changes to the Fund's portfolio.\15\ Finally, the Commission notes that
the Reporting Authority that provides the Disclosed Portfolio must
implement and maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to
prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information
regarding the actual components of the portfolio.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(D). The Exchange
states that trading in the Shares may also be halted because of
market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange,
make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The
extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities
comprising the Disclosed Portfolio and/or the financial instruments
of the Fund; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or
circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market are present.
    \15\ See supra note 6 and accompanying text. Commentary .07 to
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 requires that, if an investment
adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is
affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser erect a
``fire wall'' between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer
with respect to access to information concerning the composition
and/or changes to the investment company portfolio. Commentary .07
also requires personnel, who make decisions on the investment
company's portfolio composition, must be subject to procedures
designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic
information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio. See Commentary
.07 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange represents that
Grail Advisors, LLC is affiliated with a broker-dealer, Grail
Securities, LLC, and has implemented a fire wall with respect to
such broker-dealer regarding access to information concerning the
composition and/or changes to the portfolio. The Exchange further
represents that Grail Advisors, LLC, as the investment adviser of
the Fund, and each of the sub-advisers of the Fund, and their
respective personnel, are subject to Investment Advisers Act Rule
204A-1.
    \16\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has represented that the Shares are equity securities
subject to the Exchange's rules governing the trading of equity
securities and will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4 a.m. to 8
p.m. Eastern Time in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34
(Opening, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). In support of this
proposal, the Exchange has made representations, including:
    (1) The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing
criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
    (2) The Exchange intends to utilize its existing surveillance
procedures applicable to derivative products (which include Managed
Fund Shares) to monitor trading in the Shares. The Exchange's
surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange
trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect
violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The Exchange's current trading surveillance focuses on detecting
securities trading outside their normal patterns. When such situations
are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are
opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant
parties for all relevant trading violations. The Exchange may obtain
information via the Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG'') from other
exchanges that are members of ISG.\17\ In addition, the Exchange also
has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-
public information by its employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange represents that not all components of the
Disclosed Portfolio for the Fund may trade on markets that are
members of ISG, and the Exchange may not have in place comprehensive
surveillance sharing agreements with such markets. The Commission
notes that the Fund will be investing primarily in securities of
foreign large capitalization companies with market capitalizations
of more than $1 billion and that are subject to last-sale reporting.
In addition, the Commission notes that though, an Authorized
Participant may transact in cash, in whole or in part, with the Fund
in connection with creations or redemptions, the cash amount
delivered or received may not exceed 10% of the value of the in-kind
creation or redemption basket, subject to certain limited
conditions.
    The Commission further notes that the Fund, as an investment
company registered under the 1940 Act, is subject to the
diversification standards included in Section 5(b)(1) of the 1940
Act. The Exchange represents that the Fund's fundamental policies,
which may be changed only by a vote of the holders of a majority of
the Fund's outstanding voting securities, are as follows: (1)
Regarding diversification, the Fund may not invest more than 5% of
its total assets (taken at market value) in securities of any one
issuer, other than obligations issued by the U.S. Government, its
agencies and instrumentalities, or purchase more than 10% of the
voting securities of any one issuer, with respect to 75% of the
Fund's total assets; and (2) regarding concentration, the Fund may
not invest more than 25% of its total assets in the securities of
companies primarily engaged in any one industry or group of
industries provided that (a) this limitation does not apply to
obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, its
agencies and instrumentalities, and (b) municipalities and their
agencies and authorities are not deemed to be industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform
its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special
characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares.
Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (a)
The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares and that Shares
are not individually redeemable; (b) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a),
which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the
essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares;
(c) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and
Late Trading Sessions when an updated PIV will not be calculated or
publicly disseminated; (d) how information regarding the PIV is
disseminated; (e) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus
to

investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with
the confirmation of a transaction; and (f) trading information.
    (4) The Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the
Act.\18\ This approval order is based on the Exchange's
representations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \19\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\20\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2009-83) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-27604 Filed 11-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0027]; FRL-        ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Delaware;
Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Delaware.  This revision pertains to
establishing limits on the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) from Delaware’s large electric generation

units (EGUs).  This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the Act).

DATES:  Written comments must be received on or before [insert date 30
days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-

2007-0027 by one of the following methods:

A.    www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.

B.    E-mail:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

C.    Mail:  EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0027, Linda Miller, Acting Chief, Air
Quality Planning

Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

D.    Hand Delivery:  At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
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-R03-OAR-2007-0027.  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 e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an
(anonymous access( system, which means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your
comment.  If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going
through  www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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, 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 EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 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.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources &
Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware
19901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  On November 16, 2006, the Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
Regulation No. 1146 – Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant
Regulation.

I.    Background

Regulation No. 1146 establishes NOx, SO2 and mercury emissions limits to
achieve reductions of those pollutants from Delaware’s large EGUs of
coal-fired and residual oil-fired EGUs with a nameplate capacity rating
of 25 megawatts (MW) or greater generating capacity.  Only the NOx and
SO2 sections of this regulation will be discussed in this rulemaking.
The mercury sections of this regulation will be discussed in a separate
rulemaking.

Regulation No. 1146 will help Delaware attain and maintain the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter
(PM2.5) and will assist Delaware in achieving the emissions reductions
needed to support Delaware’s 8-hour ozone reasonable

further progress plan (RFP).  This multi-pollutant regulation will not
replace the Federal Clean

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) requirements and does not relieve affected
sources from participating in and complying with all CAIR cap-and-trade
program requirements.

II.  Summary of SIP Revision

Regulation No. 1146 applies to coal-fired and residual oil-fired EGUs
located in Delaware with a nameplate capacity rating of 25 MW or
greater.  The large EGUs subject to Regulation No. 1146 are Conective
Delmarva Generating, Inc.’s Edge Moor Generating Station Units 3, 4
and 5 located in New Castle County; the City of Dover’s McKee Run
Generating Station Unit 3 located in Kent County; and NRG Energy,
Inc.’s Indian River Generating Station Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 located in
Sussex County.

Regulation No. 1146 also contains definitions; emissions limitations for
NOx and SO2; recordkeeping and reporting; compliance plan; and annual
mass emission limits for NOx and

SO2.

A.  Emissions Limitations

1.  NOx

Regulation No. 1146 includes short term NOx emission rate limits and
will be implemented in a phased manner.  For Phase I, May 1, 2009
through December 31, 2011, the short term NOx emission rate limit is
0.15 lb/MMBTU of heat input on a rolling 24-hour average basis.  For

Phase II, January 1, 2012 and beyond, the short term NOx emission rate
limit is 0.125 lb/MMBTU of heat input on a rolling 24-hour average
basis.

A unit subject to this regulation shall not emit annual NOx mass
emissions that exceed the values shown in Table I on or after January 1,
2009.

Table I.  Annual NOx Mass Emissions Limits

Unit	Control Period NOx Mass Emissions Limit

(tons)

Edge Moor 3	773

Edge Moor 4	1339

Edge Moor 5	1348

Indian River 1	601

Indian River 2	628

Indian River 3	977

Indian River 4	2032

McKee Run 3	244

2.  SO2

Regulation No. 1146 includes short term SO2 emission rate limits and
will also be implemented

in a phased manner.  For Phase I, May 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011,
the short term SO2 emission rate limit is 0.37 lb/MMBTU of heat input on
a rolling 24-hour average basis.  For

Phase II, January 1, 2012 and beyond, the short term SO2 emission rate
limit is 0.26 lb/MMBTU of heat input on a rolling 24-hour average basis.

A unit subject to this regulation shall not emit annual SO2 mass
emissions that exceed the values shown in Table II on or after January
1, 2009.

Table II.  Annual SO2 Mass Emissions Limits

Unit	Control Period SO2 Mass Emissions Limit

(tons)

Edge Moor 3	1391

Edge Moor 4	2410

Edge Moor 5	2427

Indian River 1	1082

Indian River 2	1130

Indian River 3	1759

Indian River 4	3657

McKee Run 3	439

B. Compliance Demonstration

NOx and SO2 emissions from multiple units subject to Regulation No. 1146
at a common facility may be averaged on a heat input basis to
demonstrate compliance.

Regulation No. 1146 requires compliance demonstration with the emissions
limitations for NOx and SO2 through the use of EPA and DNREC approved
continuous emissions monitoring

systems (CEMS).  Regulation No. 1146 also requires that these CEMS must
be installed, certified, calibrated, operated, and maintained in
accordance with EPA requirements.

For NOx and SO2 emissions, Regulation No. 1146 specifies that CEMS must
comply with all 40 CFR part 75; including monitoring, recordkeeping,
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), and reporting requirements.
These are the same requirements that are necessary for compliance with
EPA’s CAIR program, for which each of the units subject to this
regulation are also subject.

C.  Compliance Plan

Regulation No. 1146 requires a submission of a compliance plan from the
owner or operator of a unit subject to this regulation to DNREC on or
before July 1, 2007.

D.  Recordkeeping and Reporting

Regulation No. 1146 requires compliance with all applicable
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 75.  Owner or
operator of a unit subject to this regulation shall maintain for a
period of at least 5 years, copies of all measurements, tests, reports
and other information required by 40 CFR part 75.  This information
shall be provided to DNREC upon request at anytime.

III.  Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the Delaware SIP revision for Regulation No.
1146 – Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation submitted
on November 16, 2006 pertaining to NOx and SO2.  This regulation will
result in the reduction of NOx and SO2 emissions from the

affected sources.  EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document.  These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

IV.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore
is not subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget.  For this reason, this action is also not subject
to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use"  (66 Fed. Reg.
28355 (May 22, 2001)).  This action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.  Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).  Because this rule proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely

affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).  This proposed rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a
state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it
approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for

the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no
authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It
would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews
a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.  As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct.  EPA has complied with Executive
Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings
implications of the rule in accordance with the (Attorney General(s
Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings( issued under the executive order.

This proposed rule pertaining to Delaware’s Electric Generating Unit
Multi-Pollutant Regulation, does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

___________________________           ____________________________

Dated:   May 10, 2007                            William T. Wisniewski,

                                                                 Acting
Regional Administrator,

                                                                 Region
III.

 PAGE  10