[Federal Register: June 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 123)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30919-30922]
[DOCID:fr29jn09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1071; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-093-AD;
Amendment 39-15951; AD 2009-14-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), which applies to certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes. That AD
currently requires repetitive inspections to detect evidence of wear
damage in the area at the interface between the vertical stabilizer
seal and fuselage skin, and corrective actions, if necessary. The
existing AD also provides for an optional terminating action for the
repetitive inspections. For all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-
100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D,
747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, this new AD requires
repetitive inspections for wear damage and cracks of the fuselage skin
in the interface area of the vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage
skin, a detailed inspection for wear damage and cracks of the surface
of any skin repair doubler in the area, and corrective actions if
necessary. For airplanes on which the fuselage skin has been blended to
remove wear damage, this new AD requires repetitive external detailed
inspections or high frequency eddy current inspections for cracks of
the blended area of the fuselage skin, and corrective actions if
necessary. This AD results from reports of wear damage on airplanes
with fewer than 8,000 total flight cycles. In addition, there have been
three reports of skin wear damage on airplanes that applied Boeing
Material Specifications 10-86 Teflon-filled coating (terminating action
per the existing AD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct wear
damage and cracks of the fuselage skin in the interface area of the
vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin in sections 46 and 48, which
could cause in-flight depressurization of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 3, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 3,
2009.
    On February 10, 2003 (68 FR 476, January 6, 2003), the Director of
the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, dated February 7, 2002.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document 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: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2002-26-15, amendment
39-13003 (68 FR 476, January 6, 2003). The existing AD applies to
certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in
the Federal Register on October 8, 2008 (73 FR 58903). That NPRM
proposed to require, for all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B
SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, repetitive inspections for
wear damage and cracks of the fuselage skin in the interface area of
the vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, a detailed inspection
for wear damage and cracks of the surface of any skin repair doubler in
the area, and corrective actions if necessary. For airplanes on which
the fuselage skin has been blended to remove wear damage, that NPRM
proposed to require repetitive external detailed inspections or high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracks of the blended
area of the fuselage skin, and corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been
received on the NPRM.

Request for Change in Applicability

    Boeing requests that the second paragraph under ``Relevant Service
Information'' of the NPRM be revised to list the specific Boeing Model
747 series airplanes affected by this rule. The commenter states that
Boeing Model 747-8 series airplanes, which are not yet FAA type-
certificated, should be excluded because they are equipped with
corrosion-resistant steel rubstrips on the affected skins, which are a
baseline configuration on these airplanes.
    We find that clarification is necessary. The applicability in
paragraph (c) of the AD identifies specifically affected Boeing Model
747 airplanes. However, the ``Relevant Service Information'' section is
not restated in the final rule. Therefore, for clarity, we have
specified in the Discussion section of this AD the specific Boeing
Model 747 airplanes identified in the AD applicability (paragraph (c))
of this AD.

Request To Delay Issuance of the AD

    Japan Airlines (JAL) requests that we delay the issuance of the AD
until the service bulletin is revised and the repair doubler wear
limits can be incorporated into the final rule. JAL states that the
NPRM and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, Revision 1, dated
March 27, 2008, do not provide any wear limits for the repair doublers.
JAL also states that operators would have to contact Boeing for repair
instructions, replace the repair, or replace the repair doubler even if
minor blending is found.
    We disagree with the request to delay issuance of this AD. The wear
limits provided in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, Revision 1,

dated March 27, 2008, are also applicable to skin repair doublers since
the skin repair doublers have the same function as the fuselage skin.
Because of the degree of urgency associated with addressing the
identified unsafe condition, we have determined that further delay of
this final rule is not appropriate. We have not changed this final rule
regarding this issue.

Request for an Alternative Inspection Plan

    Cargolux Airlines International S.A. (CLX) and Royal Dutch Airlines
(KLM) request an alternative inspection plan for paragraph (i)(1) of
the NPRM. The commenters request that we increase the grace period from
6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD to 12,000 flight
hours after the effective date of this AD (for those airplanes over the
threshold); and change the repetitive interval for the detailed
inspection from 7,500 flight hours to 12,000 flight hours (or 24
months) after the effective date of this AD, combining the detailed
inspection and a surface HFEC inspection. CLX states that the higher
sensitivity of the HFEC inspection would justify the increase in the
inspection interval. KLM and CLX also state that a 12,000-flight-hour
interval will allow for inspections to be done at regular ``C-check''
maintenance intervals. KLM also adds that there is a large economic
impact due to its airplanes having passed the threshold and being the
subject to the low repetitive interval of 7,500 flight hours.
    We disagree with the request to include an alternative inspection
plan. The service and analytical data from the airplane manufacturer do
not support this request because significant wear damage has been found
on an airplane with the Teflon-filled coating at 21,371 flight hours.
Also, one commenter's proposed surface HFEC inspection does not detect
wear damage to the skin; a surface HFEC inspection is used to detect
cracks.
    In developing the compliance times for this AD, we considered not
only the safety implications of the identified unsafe condition, but
the average utilization rate of the affected fleet and the practical
aspects of an orderly inspection, repair, and modification of the fleet
during regular maintenance periods. We have considered the commenters'
requests, and we have concluded that the proposed compliance times
remain appropriate. However, under the provisions of paragraph (m) of
this AD, we may consider requests for approval of an alternative method
of compliance if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that an
alternative inspection plan would provide an acceptable level of
safety. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Revise the Compliance Times in Paragraph (i) of This AD

    Northwest Airlines (NWA) requests a change in the initial
inspection threshold and repetitive inspection interval specified in
paragraph (i) of the NPRM. The commenter requests that we change the
compliance time to:

20,000 total flight hours from delivery, or to 20,000 flight hours
after the last application of Teflon-filled coating, or within 9,000
flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.

    NWA states that the threshold fails to recognize an equivalent
effectiveness of a subsequent Teflon application after delivery. NWA
believes that a grace period of 9,000 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD would enable the proposed actions to occur during a
heavy maintenance check visit in a suitable and safer environment. The
commenter also recommends a repetitive inspection interval of up to
20,000 flight hours from the last Teflon application.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. The service and
analytical data from the airplane manufacturer do not support the
request to change the initial inspection threshold because significant
wear damage has been found on an airplane with the Teflon-filled
coating at 21,371 total flight hours. In addition, we do not agree that
a repetitive inspection interval of 20,000 flight hours from the last
Teflon application is appropriate because the affected skins are more
likely to have suffered damage from the accumulated debris and other
sources after prolonged usage since delivery.
    We consider that the compliance times remain appropriate. However,
under the provisions of paragraph (m) of this AD, we may consider
requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to
substantiate that an alternative inspection plan would provide an
acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final rule
regarding this issue.

Explanation of Restatement of Optional Terminating Action

    We have restated paragraph (b) of AD 2002-26-15 as paragraph (g) of
this AD. We have added the phrase ``prior to the effective date of this
AD'' to paragraph (g) of this AD. If operators complied with the
optional terminating action prior to the effective date of this AD, the
repetitive inspections in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD are terminated.
However, after the effective date of this AD, the repetitive
inspections cannot be terminated until the inspections in paragraph (i)
of this AD are done.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 917 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                               Average                                             U.S.-
            Action               Work hours   labor rate        Parts        Cost per airplane   registered                   Fleet cost
                                               per hour                                          airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection (required by AD               12          $80  None.............  $960, per                  253  $242,880, per inspection cycle.
 2002-26-15).                                                                 inspection cycle.
Inspection and application of             8          $80  None.............  $640, per                  165  $105,600, per inspection cycle.
 BMS 10-86 Teflon-filled                                                      inspection cycle.
 coating (new action).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-13003 (68 FR 476, January 6, 2003) and by adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2009-14-02 Boeing: Amendment 39-15951. Docket No. FAA-2008-1071;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-093-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective August 3, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2002-26-15.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B
SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of skin wear damage on
airplanes with fewer than 8,000 total flight cycles. In addition,
there have been three reports of skin wear damage on airplanes on
which Boeing Material Specifications (BMS) 10-86 Teflon-filled
coating was applied (terminating action per AD 2002-26-15). We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct wear damage and cracks of the
fuselage skin in the interface area of the vertical stabilizer seal
and fuselage skin in sections 46 and 48, which could cause in-flight
depressurization of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Requirements of AD 2002-26-15

Inspections for Damage/Corrective Actions

    (f) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2478, dated February 7, 2002: Prior to the accumulation of
15,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,200 flight cycles after
February 10, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2002-26-15), whichever
occurs later, perform a detailed inspection to detect evidence of
wear damage of the fuselage skin at the interface area of the
vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, per Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2478, dated February 7, 2002.
    (1) If no wear damage of the fuselage skin is detected or any
existing blendout is within the structural repair manual (SRM)
allowable damage limits: Repeat the detailed inspection at intervals
not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles.
    (2) If any wear damage of the fuselage skin is detected or any
existing blendout exceeds the allowable damage limits specified in
the SRM: Before further flight, repair the vertical stabilizer seal
interface and refinish the skin with BMS 10-86 Teflon-filled
coating, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, dated
February 7, 2002. Accomplishment of the repair and refinishing is
terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is
defined as: ``An intensive visual examination of a specific
structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage,
failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity
deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,
magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate
access procedures may be required.''

Optional Terminating Action for Paragraph (f) of This AD

    (g) Refinishing the fuselage skin with BMS 10-86 Teflon-filled
coating, prior to the effective date of this AD, per Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2478, dated February 7, 2002, terminates the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

Previously Accomplished Inspections and Terminating Action

    (h) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2478, dated February 7, 2002: Inspections and terminating
action done before February 10, 2003, per Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53-2192, dated July 21, 1981, are acceptable for compliance with
the corresponding actions required by paragraph (f) of this AD,
provided BMS 10-86 Teflon-filled coating was used, and the new
allowable damage limits specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2478, dated February 7, 2002, are met.

New Requirements of This AD

New Repetitive Inspections

    (i) Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in Table 1 of this AD, do the actions
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
Accomplishing the initial inspection specified in paragraph (i)
terminates the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.
    (1) For all airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraphs
(i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
    (i) Do repetitive external detailed inspections for wear damage
and cracks of the fuselage skin in the interface area of the
vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008.
    (ii) Where a skin repair doubler is present in the interface
area of the vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin, do a
detailed inspection for wear damage and cracks of the surface of the
repair doubler.
    (2) For airplanes that have reduced skin thickness in section 46
due to blending without reinforcement: Do repetitive external
detailed inspections or high frequency eddy (HFEC) current
inspections for cracks of the

blended area of the fuselage skin, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008.

                                            Table 1--Compliance Times
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Compliance time (whichever occurs
                                               later)
            Action            ---------------------------------------      Repeat interval  (Not to exceed)
                                     Threshold         Grace Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For actions required by        Prior to the          Within 6,000     7,500 flight hours.
 paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.   accumulation of       flight hours
                                20,000 total flight   after the
                                hours since the       effective date
                                date of issuance of   of this AD.
                                the original
                                airworthiness
                                certificate or the
                                date of issuance of
                                the original export
                                certificate of
                                airworthiness, or
                                within 7,500 flight
                                hours after the
                                last inspection of
                                this AD, whichever
                                occurs later.
For actions required by        Prior to the          Within 1,000     1,200 flight cycles for external detailed
 paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.   accumulation of       flight cycles    inspection, or 6,000 flight cycles for
                                20,000 total flight   after the        HFEC inspection.
                                cycles since the      effective date
                                date of issuance of   of this AD.
                                the original
                                airworthiness
                                certificate or the
                                date of issuance of
                                the original export
                                certificate of
                                airworthiness, or
                                within 6,000 flight
                                cycles after the
                                initial blend,
                                whichever occurs
                                later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exception to the Repetitive Inspections

    (j) If corrosion-resistant steel rubstrips are installed in the
interface area of the vertical stabilizer seal and fuselage skin:
Within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraph (i) of
this AD, inspect the fuselage skin using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this
AD.

For No Wear Damage or Cracks Found: Apply Teflon

    (k) If no wear damage or crack is found in the fuselage skin (or
skin repair doubler) during any inspection required by paragraph (i)
of this AD: Before further flight, apply Boeing Material
Specifications (BMS) 10-86 Teflon-filled coating in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008.

For Any Wear Damage or Crack Found: Applicable Corrective Actions

    (l) If any wear damage or crack is found in the fuselage skin
(or skin repair doubler) during any inspections required by
paragraph (i) of this AD: Before further flight, after the
inspection required by paragraph (i), do the actions specified in
paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008.
    (1) Measure the depth of the wear and record the location.
    (2) Repair any wear damage and any crack.
    (3) Apply BMS 10-86 Teflon-filled coating.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S,
FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2478,
dated February 7, 2002; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008; as applicable; to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2478, Revision 1, dated March 27, 2008, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51.
    (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2478, dated February 7, 2002, on February 10, 2003 (68 FR 476,
January 6, 2003).
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information
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/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 19, 2009.
Dorr M. Anderson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E9-15085 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [ EPA R03 2006 0314; FRL ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; Amendments to Stage II Vapor Recovery at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Maryland State Implementation Plan ( SIP). The revisions clarify system testing and reporting requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities that are currently required to implement Stage II Vapor Recovery.

EPA is proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act ( CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on [ Insert date 60 days after publication in the Federal Register]

without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by [ Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register]. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA R03 2006 0314,

by one of the following methods:

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

B. E mail: morris. makeba@ epa. gov C. Mail: EPA R03 2006 0314, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Programs 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 2006 0314. 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 A 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. 3 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 Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland, 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine L. Magliocchetti, ( 215) 814 2174,

or by e mail at magliocchetti. catherine@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section is organized as follows:

What Action is EPA taking?

What are the CAA requirements for Stage II programs?

What revisions did Maryland make to its Stage II rule?

Why is EPA approving Maryland= s revised Stage II rule?

What Action is EPA taking?

EPA is proposing to approve Maryland =

s Amendments to Regulations .04 and .07 under COMAR 26.11.24 Stage II Vapor Recovery at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, and incorporate these changes 4 into the Maryland SIP. The amendments were proposed by the Maryland Secretary of the Environment on December 10, 2004, went to public hearing on January 11, 2005, were adopted on January 26, 2005, finalized on February 18, 2005 and became effective on February 28, 2005. The Maryland Department of the Environment submitted these amendments ( Revision # 05 02) to EPA as a SIP revision on March 15, 2005.

What are the CAA requirements for Stage II programs?

The 1990 Clean Air Act required states to develop regulations requiring Stage II Vapor Recovery in severe and serious ozone nonattainment areas. Stage II is the control of gasoline vapors when dispensing gasoline into vehicle fuel tanks. This program was implemented in Maryland in January 1993, with a requirement for system installation at service stations owned by oil companies that had a monthly throughput of 10,000 gallons or more, and for other dispensing facilities with a monthly throughput of 50,000 gallons or more. Maryland =

s Stage II regulations were submitted as a SIP revision to EPA on January 18, 1993, and approved by EPA on June 9,

1993 ( 54 FR 29730). Maryland submitted revisions to these regulations as a SIP revision on May 23, 2002, which were approved by EPA on May 7, 2003 ( 68 FR 24363).

What revisions did Maryland make to its Stage II rule?

The Amendments to Regulations .04 and .07 under COMAR 26.11.24 that are the subject of this rulemaking will:

( 1) Clarify that the Healy Stage II system does not require a liquid blockage test because the vacuum assist pump is located at the storage tank; 5 ( 2) Delete the requirement to test the automatic shutoff mechanism each month because it is observed or inspected daily similar to all other Stage II approved equipment;

( 3) Clarify that test failures are to be reported to the Department within 5 days; and ( 4) Require a facility to notify the Department at least 5 days before performing a test and that the test results be submitted to the Department within 45 days.

Why is EPA approving Maryland= s revised Stage II rule?

EPA has reviewed the revisions to Regulations .04 and .07 under COMAR 26.11.24 and has determined that the revisions continue to meet the requirements for states to have approved Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems. In addition, the revisions strengthen the SIP by providing additional clarification for testing and reporting requirements to the Department.

III. Final Action EPA is approving the revisions to Maryland =

s Stage II regulations submitted to EPA on March 15, 2005. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the AProposed Rules@ section of today= s Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on [ Insert date 60 days from date of publication in the Federal Register] without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by [ Insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register]. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address 6 all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 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 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves 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 rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between 7 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). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

This action merely approves 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 rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 AProtection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks@ ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

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. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General 8 The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a Amajor rule@ as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307( b)( 1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this approval of Maryland= s Amendments to Stage II Vapor Recovery Regulations must be filed in the United 9 States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [ insert date 60 days from date of publication of this document in the Federal Register]. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307( b)( 2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

_________________ / s/________________ Dated: April 24, 2006 Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52  [ AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. 10 Subpart VB Maryland 2. In ' 52.1070, the table in paragraph ( c) is amended by revising the entries for COMAR 26.11.24 to read as follows:

' 52.1070 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

( c)* * *

EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP Code of Maryland administrative regulations ( COMAR)

citation Title/ subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/

citation at 40 CFR ' 52.1100 * * * * * * *

26.11.24 Stage II Vapor Recovery at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities * * * * * * *

<IP_ADDRESS> Testing Requirements 2/ 28/ 05 [ Insert Federal Register publication date]

[ Insert page number where the document begins]

* * * * * * *

<IP_ADDRESS> Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements 2/ 28/ 05 [ Insert Federal Register publication date]

[ Insert page number where the document begins] Code of Maryland administrative regulations ( COMAR)

citation Title/ subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/

citation at 40 CFR ' 52.1100 11 * * * * * * *

* * * * *


ICR Supporting Statement
Information Collection Request for Implementation of Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program
OMB Control No. 2040-0292, EPA ICR No. 2549.03

A.  Justification.

      Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.  Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection.

      The collection of information is necessary to receive applications for credit assistance pursuant to the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) of 2014, 33 U.S.C. Chapter 52. This includes both base WIFIA program loans and State Infrastructure Finance Authority WIFIA (SWIFIA) loans as explained in Section 3912(e). The purpose of the WIFIA program is to provide federal credit assistance in the form of direct loans and loan guarantees to eligible clean water and drinking water projects.

      WIFIA Section 3903(a) requires that "an eligible entity shall submit to [the Administrator] an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information, as the [the Administrator] may require" to receive assistance under WIFIA. To satisfy these requirements, the WIFIA regulation at 40 CFR 35.10015 establishes a two-step application process with a Letter of Interest (LOI) and an application. The regulation established that in the LOI, EPA may collect prospective borrower information, project plans, preliminary project operations and maintenance plans, proposed financing plans and audited financial statements, contact information, written responses to selection criteria, certifications, a notification of the applicable state infrastructure financing authority, and other information to select projects. The eligible entity for the selected project must then submit an application if they wish to obtain a WIFIA loan.

      The regulation established that the application shall provide additional information including, at a minimum, detailed applicant information, detailed project information, a detailed project operation and maintenance plan, a comprehensive financing plan, and complete certifications. The relevant section of the WIFIA statute is attached hereto as Exhibit A. With each appropriation, EPA publishes a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) in the Federal Register to give entities an opportunity to submit application materials to request WIFIA and/or SWIFIA loans funded with that appropriation. This collection is necessary to determine whether each proposed project meets creditworthiness and other federal requirements to receive WIFIA credit assistance.

 2.Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

      The LOI and the application for the base WIFIA program and SWIFIA program collected from prospective borrowers will be used to evaluate applications for credit assistance under the WIFIA eligibility requirements and selection criteria as outlined in the annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA).

      Additionally, due to the frequency of requests for waivers under the American Iron and Steel Act (AIS) and the likelihood of waiver requests under the Build America Buy America Act (BABAA), EPA has developed a waiver request form to streamline the process and ensure that the WIFIA program has the necessary information to make any waiver determination.

      Exhibit B is the WIFIA LOI form (6100-033). In it, EPA requests the information it needs to:
Validate the eligibility of the prospective borrower and the proposed project
Perform a preliminary creditworthiness assessment;
Perform a preliminary engineering feasibility analysis; and
Evaluate the project against the selection criteria found at 40 CFR 35.10055 and outlined in the NOFA.

      To determine eligibility, EPA requests key loan information, such as a general description of the borrower, project, purpose, loan amount, total eligible project costs, application submission date, loan close date, and population information. For EPA to evaluate creditworthiness, the prospective borrower will provide the preferred lien priority for the WIFIA loan and a current rating letter. If the prospective borrower does not have a current rating letter, they may provide a pro-forma or financial statements and a budget. To complete the preliminary feasibility analysis, EPA asks the prospective borrower to provide technical reports or written information relevant to evaluating the project and a high-level schedule of dates for each of the project or projects included as part of the LOI. In the selection criteria section, EPA asks prospective borrowers to describe the potential policy benefits achieved using WIFIA assistance with respect to each of the WIFIA program selection criteria. These responses are used to evaluate projects using the selection criteria. Additionally, EPA requests the borrowers' contact information for future communication.

      EPA also requests that the prospective borrower certify that it will abide by all applicable laws and regulations, if selected to receive funding. Finally, EPA includes a State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) notification section to ensure that the prospective borrower is aware that the EPA will notify the state infrastructure financing authority in the state in which the project is located that it submitted an LOI, as required by 40 CFR 35.10050, and provide the submitted LOI and source documents to that authority, unless the prospective borrower opts out of having its LOI and source documents shared.

      Exhibits C and D are the WIFIA applications forms (6100-032, 6100-54). In preparation for more private borrowers, EPA has developed a separate application that is more accurate for those borrower types. The purpose of both applications is identical and having a specialized application will reduce burden to private borrowers in trying to fit their data to questions not appropriate for them. For these reasons, EPA estimates that both applications will have the same burden. In it, EPA requests information needed to confirm the eligibility of the project and borrower, evaluate the creditworthiness of the prospective borrower and project for the proposed WIFIA credit assistance, and conduct the engineering due diligence, including federal compliance. This includes:

Key Applicant and Loan Information: EPA requests basic information such as its legal name, project name, estimated total projects costs, requested WIFIA loan amount, anticipated closing date, and contact information. It also collects information about jobs, savings, Unique Entity ID assigned by SAM.gov, and employer/taxpayer identification number.
Applicant Background: Materials submitted under this section detail the applicant's legal authority to apply for a WIFIA loan and to undertake the project and disclose any current, threatened, or pending litigation. EPA also requests information like customer concentration analysis, water and sewer rate information, capital improvement planning process information, any accounts receivable outstanding information, the latest condition assessment report or a master plan that informs the engineering due diligence.
Financing Plan: To assess creditworthiness and calculate the subsidy amount, EPA requests a comprehensive plan describing how the project will be financed and how financing will be repaid over the tenor of the requested WIFIA credit assistance. This includes a detailed financial model covering all periods through final maturity of the WIFIA credit assistance, the sources and seniority of other financing, a description of the dedicated sources of repayment, rate covenants, and security for the requested WIFIA credit assistance. As required by statute, 33 U.S.C. 3907(a)(1)(D)(i), EPA also requests a preliminary rating letter from a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO). EPA also asks for the prospective borrower's proposed terms and conditions for the WIFIA credit assistance to inform a creditworthiness analysis.
Federal Requirements Compliance: EPA requests information about the status of the environmental review and the status of SRF environmental review, if applicable. The applicant also identifies any cross-cutting consultations that have been undertaken and any major permits or approvals required. This allows EPA to complete its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) determination and assess compliance with federal requirements and cost-cutters.
Contract Information: To inform engineering due diligence, EPA requests that the applicant fills out a separate Excel spreadsheet with specific contract information including contract components, project information within each contract, the project delivery method, and filenames of technical reports. The applicant also provides information about costs, schedules, operations and maintenance plans, and final or draft bid specifications for the project(s).
Certifications: The applicant certifies that it will abide by all applicable laws and regulations, including NEPA and the Davis-Bacon wage rules.

      Exhibit F is the SWIFIA LOI form (6100-031). It is used solely by State infrastructure financing authority borrowers applying for financing under the SWIFIA program. In it, EPA requests the information it needs to:
Validate the eligibility of the prospective borrower and the proposed project
To evaluate the project against the selection criteria.

      To determine eligibility, EPA requests loan information, including, the prospective borrower's legal name, address, website, SAM.gov unique entity ID number, and employer/taxpayer identification number. It also requests its requested SWIFIA loan amount, the estimated total costs of the SWIFIA project, whether the projects are Clean Water SRF and/or Drinking Water SRF projects, and its requested loan structure. EPA also asks for supporting documents including the most recent version of its Intended Use Plan (IUP), SRF Operating Agreements, and the bond indenture (if applicable) to determine eligibility, including creditworthiness. EPA requests documentation of the priority setting system to evaluate the project against the selection criteria defined in the NOFA. EPA also requests the prospective borrower identifies the point of contact with whom the WIFIA program should communicate regarding the LOI. Finally, EPA asks the prospective borrower to certify that it will abide by all applicable laws and regulations, including NEPA, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the American Iron and Steel requirements as required by 33 USC 3914, and federal labor standards as required by 33 USC 3909(h), among others, if selected to receive financing.

      Exhibit G is the application form for all State infrastructure financing authority borrowers applying to either the WIFIA base program or SWIFIA program (6100-030). In it, EPA requests information needed to confirm the eligibility of the project and borrower, evaluate the creditworthiness of the prospective borrower and project for the proposed WIFIA credit assistance, and conduct the engineering due diligence, including federal compliance. The following list outlines the elements of an application.

Loan and Applicant Information: EPA requests basic information such as its legal name, project name, requested loan amount, estimated total costs of the SRF loans that are included in the Project, anticipated closing date, and contact information. In addition, the applicant provides its SAM.gov Unique Entity ID number, and employer/taxpayer identification number. EPA also requests information about the quantitative and qualitative benefits of the project, such as environmental, public health and economic benefits and cost savings. EPA asks the applicant to explain its legal structure, legal authority to apply for a loan, approval process and to discloses any current, threatened, or pending litigation.
Financing Plan: EPA requests that the applicant indicate its requested loan structure. Three options are available. For SWIFIA borrowers, option 1 equates to the WIFIA program adopting the SRF program's existing indenture and option 2 equates to the SRF program accepting the WIFIA program's standard terms. State infrastructure finance authorities that are selected under the WIFIA base program may opt to negotiate their terms. Based on the requested loan structure, EPA asks the appropriate questions to evaluate creditworthiness.
Supporting Document: EPA requests documents referenced in the application to support its creditworthiness review, engineering due diligence, and NEPA determination.
Certifications: EPA asks the applicant to certify that it will abide by all applicable laws and regulations, including NEPA and the Davis-Bacon wage rules.
      Exhibit H is EPA's waiver request form (6100-080) to streamline the process waiver submission and ensure that the WIFIA program has the necessary information to make any waiver determination. It includes information such as project descriptions, type of waiver and justification, product availability information, cost information, and public benefit information to determine eligibility for a waiver.

3.Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

The LOI form is available electronically. To reduce burden and reduce the number of copies required, the LOI and supporting documents are submitted via WIFIA's SharePoint site. The application is available electronically. It is also submitted electronically via WIFIA's SharePoint site.

4.Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purpose(s) described in item 2 above.

      The LOI and applications will generally be project specific and the information is not available elsewhere. Applicants may reference documents that already exist and submit the documents as attachments or links as part of the LOI and application process.

5.If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities (item 5 of the OMB form 83-1), describe the methods used to minimize burden.

      Eligible applicants under WIFIA include corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, trusts, federal, state, or local governmental entities, agencies, or instrumentalities, tribal governments or consortium of tribal governments, and state infrastructure financing authorities, which could include small entities. LOIs and applications are voluntary. EPA cannot minimize the burden to small entities because WIFIA requires all eligible entities to submit an application in order to receive credit assistance. The relevant section of WIFIA is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

6.Describe the consequence to federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

      If the collection is not conducted, EPA will be unable to satisfy the statutory mandate to require the submission of applications. Therefore, WIFIA credit assistance will not be available. To provide credit assistance to eligible projects, which is the purpose of the program, EPA must collect letters of interest and applications that respond to the eligibility requirements and selection criteria.

 7.Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2):

      There are no special circumstances. The collection of information is conducted in a manner consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8.Efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views

      On Friday, August 26, 2022, Vol. 87 No. 165, pages 52551 to 52552, the Agency published the notice of information collection and request for comments in the Federal Register. No comments were received.

      EPA also consulted with persons outside the Agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format, and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported. These consultations occurred over the period of October 17-October 25, 2022. The consultations took the form of video calls with existing borrowers, who had experience with the relevant forms. In total, 6 entities were interviewed, with multiple participants from each entity on the call.

      In general, the consultations were favorable, with many concerns regarding previous forms having been addressed in the proposed form. There were some specific notes on form language and clarity that are addressed in the final versions of the form. The burden estimates by users were consistent with our estimates and generally users understood the need for the data collected. Borrowers appreciated the statutory change to only one required credit rating for loan closing and the policy decision that additional financial data is only required at the letter of interest stage if the borrower does not have an external credit rating.

9.Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

      No payments or gifts are provided to respondents.

10.Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

      EPA cannot offer an assurance of confidentiality to any applicant. The applicant is directed to state if any information submitted in its LOI, application, or any supplementary material may not be released by the Agency upon request from a member of the public or otherwise made publicly available. The applicant must identify the confidential business information and provide reasons why such information is confidential business information and should not be released, including particulars as to any competitive harm which would potentially result from the release of such information. The Agency will handle requests from the public for release of information under its standard Freedom of Information Act procedures.

11.Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

      Questions of a sensitive nature are not found in this information collection.

12.Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

      Based on respondent numbers, burden data from the WIFIA's previous rounds of collecting LOIs and applications, and consultations with borrowers, EPA is estimating the burden below. Typically, around 10 LOIs that are invited to apply do not end up submitting an application for various reasons.

Hours Per Response
Annual Submissions
Total Annual Hours
Letter of Interest - Base Program
60
45
2700
Letter of Interest - SWIFIA Program
5
5
25
Application - Base Program
200
35
7000
Application - SWIFIA Program
100
5
500
Waivers - Base Program
15
15
225
TOTAL HOURS

10450

13.Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information.

      Respondent Labor Costs

      To calculate labor rates, EPA used the mean hourly wages from the May 2021 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates (bls.gov) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics plus an additional 60 percent to account for overhead expenses.
Lawyers= $113.87
Management= $94.90
Engineers= $45.77
Office and Administrative Support= $33.41

      Total average annual labor costs for this ICR = $772,065

      The tables below show the breakdown of labor costs for the LOIs, Applications, and Waivers.

      LOIs (Base Program)

      For the Base Program LOI, EPA estimates 2,700 annual burden hours and the annualized cost of those hours is $208,781. EPA estimates 405 legal hours (at $113.87/hour equal $4,6118); 495 management hours (at $94.90/hour equal $46,974); 1,395 technical hours (at $45.77/hour equal $102,159); and 405 clerical hours (at $33.41/hour equal $13,530).

Number of Collections per year
Hours per Collection
Total Hours per Collection
Total Cost per year
 45
60
 2,700
 $208,781

      LOIs (SWIFIA Program)

      For the SWIFIA LOI, EPA estimates 25 annual burden hours and the annualized cost of those hours is $1,971. EPA estimates 6.25 legal hours (a $113.87/hour equal $712); 6.25 management hours (at $94.90/hour equal $593); 6.25 technical hours (at $45.77/hour equal $458); and 6.25 clerical hours (at $33.41/hour equals $209).

Number of Collections per year
Hours per Collection
Total Hours per Collection
Total Cost per year
5
5
25
 $1,971

      Applications (Base Program)

      For the Base Program application, EPA estimates 7,000 annual burden hours and the annualized cost of those hours is $508,173. EPA estimates 175 legal hours (at $113.87/hour equal $19,928); 560 management hours (at $94.90/hour equal $53,142); 5,670 technical hours (at $45.77/hour equal $415,225); and 595 clerical hours (at $33.41/hour equal $19,878).

Number of Collections per year
Hours per Collection
Total Hours per Collection
Total Cost per year
35
200
7,000
 $508,173

      Applications (SWIFIA Program)

      For the SWIFIA application, EPA estimates 500 annual burden hours and the annualized cost of those hours is $36,338. EPA estimates 27.5 legal hours (at $113.87/hour equal $3,131); 27.5 management hours (at $94.90/hour equal $2,610); 395 technical hours (at $45.77/hour equal $28,927); and 50 clerical hours (at $33.41/hour equal $1,670).

Number of Collections per year
Hours per Collection
Total Hours per Collection
Total Cost per year
5
100
500
 $36,338

      AIS/BABAA Waivers

      For the AIS/BABAA Waivers, EPA estimates 225 annual burden hours and the annualized cost of those hours is $16,802. EPA estimates 0 legal hours (at $113.87/hour equal $0); 15 management hours (at $94.90/hour equal $1,423); 210 technical hours (at $45.77/hour equal $15,379); and 0 clerical hours (at $33.41/hour equal $0).

Number of Collections per year
Hours per Collection
Total Hours per Collection
Total Cost per year
 15
 15
 225
 $16,802

      Respondent Application Costs

      Applicants will be charged two fees: an application fee and a credit processing fee. An application fee will be due upon submission of the application. A credit processing fee will be due upon loan closing, to reimburse costs incurred by the EPA due to legal, financial, and other expert contractor help. For projects serving small communities (population of not more than 25,000 people), the application fee will be $25,000. For all other applicants, including all SWIFIA applicants, the application fee will be $100,000. The application fee is a down payment on the credit processing. And although the up-front application costs differ for a small vs. a large borrower, EPA estimates the total costs of the application fee and the credit processing fee to be the same for all borrowers in the base program. Due to the nature of this credit processing fee, the amount is expected to vary between applicants. However, EPA estimates these costs for WIFIA base program applicants based previous years as approximately $200,000 per applicant. The total credit processing fees for SWIFIA would be $200,000. The total for 40 borrowers is $8,000,000.00, 35 base program borrowers (at $200,000/borrower), and 5 SWIFIA borrowers (at $200,000/borrower).

      Applicants to both the base WIFIA program and the SWIFIA program are required to submit a preliminary rating letter at the time of application and one final rating letter at the time of closing that indicate that the senior obligation of the project has an investment grade rating. This requirement can be found at 33 U.S.C. § 3907(a)(1)(D)(ii), and reflects the 2021 amendment which reduced the ratings letters from two to one.  The cost of the rating letter varies based on the size and complexity of the project. Based on bond rating agency estimates and industry research, EPA estimates that the final rating letter will cost approximately $50,000 and that the initial preliminary rating letter is included in the cost of the final letter. The total cost for 40 applicants (35 base program and 5 SWIFIA) is $2,000,000.

Cost Item
Cost
# Per Year
Annual Cost
Application& Credit Processing Fees  -  Base Program
$200,000
35
 $7,000,000.00
Application& Credit Processing Fees  -  SWIFIA
$200,000
5
 $1,000,000.00
Rating Letter
$50,000
 40
 $2,000,000.00
ANNUAL TOTAL
$10,000,000.00

14.Provide estimates of annualized cost to the federal government.
The estimated cost to the federal government of the request for letters of interest and applications is $3,868,450.56.

      EPA follows an evaluation process to review each LOI and application and to determine which projects will receive WIFIA funding. This process includes technical, financial, and management review of the letters of interest. Then, additional technical, financial, and management review of the applications. EPA estimates that this process will take 65% of 26 FTEs' time.

      The estimated average annual cost for EPA personnel is $143,064.00 based on the General Schedule (GS) 14, Step 05 level from the 2022 GS salary table. The annual cost was then multiplied by the standard government benefits multiplication factor of 1.6 to calculate an estimated annual pay including benefits per FTE of $228,902.40. Therefore, the estimated annualized cost for the evaluation team is $3,868,450.56.

      EPA will hire legal, financial, and other expert contractor support for credit processing. These costs are estimated to be $200,000 per application. They are expected to be reimbursed in full by the applicants. The net estimated annualized cost to the Federal Government for credit processing is $0.

      Explain the reason for any program changes or adjustments reported in items 13 or 14.

      There was an overall decrease of 375 hours in average annual burden hours. This is the net result of one increase and one decrease in hours.
The AIS/BABA Waiver Form, which was created to streamline the waiver application process added 225 hours.
A Reduction of 600 hours due to a decrease in expected number of WIFIA LOIs from 55 to 45, based on the average number of collections over the past 3 years.

      The average annual non-labor cost burden to the public decreased by $4,500,000. This was driven by two factors.
There was a statutory change that reduced the total number of required final ratings letters from 2 to 1, significantly cutting the costs associated with them.
Based on actual fees over the previous ICR period (2019-2022), the estimated fees for both the base program and SWIFIA have been decreased to $200,000 per applicant.

      For the cost to the federal government, EPA's annual cost increased, because of salary increases across federal government.

      For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation, and publication.

      The letters of interest and applications collected for the WIFIA program will not be published. EPA will maintain a publicly available list of projects that have submitted letters of interest and applications to the WIFIA program. The current lists are available at https://www.epa.gov/wifia/wifia-projects

17.If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

      The Agency plans to display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection on all instruments.

18.Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in item 19, "certification for paperwork reduction act submissions."

      The Agency can certify compliance with all provisions under Item 19.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 59959]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24026]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4080-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 12 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4080-DR), dated August 29, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 21, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 29, 2012.

    The parishes of Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Jefferson,
Livingston, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. John the Baptist, and West
Feliciana for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated
for Individual Assistance and debris removal and emergency
protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-24026 Filed 9-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: March 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 12403-12405]
[DOCID:fr07mr08-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

February 29, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG08-44-000
    Applicants: Starwood Power-Midway, LLC.
    Description: Starwood Power-Midway, LLC Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 02/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080227-5035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 19, 2008.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER00-2268-025; ER07-428-004; ER99-4122-026; ER99-
4124-022; EL07-82-001.
    Applicants: Pinnacle West Capital Corporation; Pinnacle West
Marketing & Trading Co, LLC; APS Energy Services Co Inc.; Arizona
Public Service Company.
    Description: Electric Compliance Refund Report of the Pinnacle West
Companies.
    Filed Date: 02/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080228-5074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-1437-006.
    Applicants: Triton Power Michigan LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Triton
Power Michigan LLC.
    Filed Date: 02/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080228-5037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1199-002.
    Applicants: Airtricity Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Airtricity Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC submits
Substitute Original Sheet 4 and 5 to reflect their deletion under ER07-
1199.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080228-0164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 17, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-413-001; EC08-33-001.
    Applicants: Startrans IO, LLC.
    Description: Startrans IO, LLC submits their response to FERC's 2/
22/08 deficiency letter.
    Filed Date: 02/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080228-0297.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-441-001.
    Applicants: Velocity American Energy Master I, L.P.
    Description: Velocity American Energy Master I, LP submits an
Amendment to the application for Order Accepting Market Based Rate
Tariff etc.
    Filed Date: 02/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080229-0071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-444-001.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: NSTAR Electric Co et al submits their three-year
market-based rate update and request for exemption of the Category 2
Seller's filing.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080228-0166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 17, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-460-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. an
    Description: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC and Entergy Texas,
Inc submits an errata to the 1/22/08 Notices of Succession.
    Filed Date: 02/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080228-0298.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-536-001.
    Applicants: Polytop Corporation.
    Description: Polytop Corp submits a Petition for Acceptance of
Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket Authority.
    Filed Date: 02/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080229-0072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-581-000.
    Applicants: Altorfer Inc.
    Description: Altorfer Inc submits a notice of cancellation of FERC
Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1, to become effective 1/1/08.
    Filed Date: 02/11/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080222-0112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-599-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corp agent for AEP
Operating Companies submits a sixth revision to the Interconnection and
Local Delivery Agreement with Blue Ridge Power Authority.
    Filed Date: 02/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080228-0303.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-600-000.
    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company
    Description: Kansas City Power & Light Company submits Amendatory
Agreement 9 to FERC Rate Schedule 101.
    Filed Date: 02/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080228-0302.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-601-000.
    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company.
    Description: Kansas City Power and Light Co submits cancellation of
Rate Schedule FPC 42.
    Filed Date: 02/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080228-0301.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-602-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Puget Sound Energy, Inc submits an Amendment 1 to
Facilities and Interconnection Agreement dated as of 1/31/08 with
Public Utility District 2 of Grant County, WA.
    Filed Date: 02/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080228-0300.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-603-000.
    Applicants: Conectiv Delmarva Generation LLC.
    Description: Conectiv Delmarva Generation, LLC notified FERC that
as a result of conversion of Conectiv Delmarva Generation, Inc from
Delaware Corp to a Delaware limited Liability Co, CDG, LLC has
succeeded and adopts their Rate Schedule 1.
    Filed Date: 02/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080228-0299.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-604-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits a Notice of Cancellation of
an Electric Power Supply Agreement with the City of Centralia, Kansas.
    Filed Date: 02/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080229-0061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-605-000.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: NSTAR Electric Co files a notice of succession in
order to change the name on Boston Edison Co's Phase I/II HVDC-TF
Service Schedule etc.
    Filed Date: 02/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080229-0060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-606-000.
    Applicants: Cambridge Electric Light Company and Com.
    Description: NSTAR Electric & Gas Corp et al files notices of
cancellation of Phase I/II HVDC-TC Service Schedules to Schedule 20A of
ISO New England Inc's Open Access Transmission Tariff, to be effective
1/1/07.
    Filed Date: 02/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080229-0059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-607-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Co submits the new Rate Schedule
315, Agreement for Specified Services with Brevard Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 02/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080229-0058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-608-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Co submits the Brevard Energy
LLC Parallel Operation Agreement with the Seminole Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 02/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080229-0057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-609-000.
    Applicants: Endure Energy, LLC
    Description: Endure Energy, LLC submits a Petition for Acceptance
of Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket Authority.
    Filed Date: 02/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080229-0056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-610-000.
    Applicants: Northeast Utilities Service Company.
    Description: Northeast Utilities Service Co et al submits an
executed Amended and Restated Agreement.
    Filed Date: 02/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080229-0062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 20, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://

www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.
    There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to
a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-4477 Filed 3-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P