            SUPPORTING STATEMENT  -  INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST
ICR for the Federal "Good Neighbor Plan" for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Transport Obligations for Electric Generating Units

1.0  Identification of the Information Collection

   1.1  Title of the Information Collection

	ICR for the Federal "Good Neighbor Plan" for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Transport Obligations for Electric Generating Units. EPA ICR Number 2709.02, OMB Control Number 2060-NEW.

   1.2  Short Characterization / Abstract

      The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing an information collection request (ICR), related specifically to electric generating units (EGU), for the Federal "Good Neighbor Plan" for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The rule amends the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) NOX Ozone Season Group 3 trading program addressing seasonal NOX emissions in various states. Under the rule, all EGU sources in the original twelve Group 3 states (Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia) would remain. Additionally, EGU sources in seven states (Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin) currently covered by the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program would transition from the Group 2 program to the revised Group 3 program beginning with the 2023 ozone season. Further, sources in three states not currently covered by any CSAPR NOX ozone season trading program would join the revised Group 3 program:  Minnesota, Nevada, and Utah. In total, EGU sources in 22 states would be covered by the Group 3 program.

      There is an existing ICR (OMB Control Number 2060-0667), that includes information collection requirements placed on EGU sources for the six Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading programs addressing sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, annual nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions, or seasonal NOx emissions in various sets of states, and the Texas SO2 trading program which is modeled after CSAPR. This ICR accounts for the additional respondent burden related to the amendments to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Group 3 Trading Program.

      The principal information collection requirements under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs relate to the monitoring and reporting of emissions and associated data in accordance with 40 CFR part 75. Other information collection requirements under the programs concern the submittal of information necessary to allocate and transfer emission allowances and the submittal of certificates of representation and other typically one-time registration forms.

      Affected sources under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs are generally stationary, fossil fuel-fired boilers and combustion turbines serving generators larger than 25 megawatts (MW) producing electricity for sale. Most of these affected sources are also subject to the Acid Rain Program (ARP). The information collection requirements under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs and the ARP substantially overlap and are fully integrated. The burden and costs of overlapping requirements are accounted for in the ARP ICR (OMB Control Number 2060-0258). Thus, this ICR accounts for information collection burden and costs under the CSAPR NOx Ozone Season Group 3 trading program that are incremental to the burden and costs already accounted for in both the ARP and CSAPR ICRs.

      For most sources already reporting data under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 or the CSAPR NOx Ozone Group 2 trading programs, the reporting requirements will remain identical so there will be no incremental burden or cost. Certain sources currently reporting data will be subject to additional emission reporting requirements under the rule requiring these sources to make a one-time monitoring plan and Data Acquisition and Handling System (DAHS) update. These sources include those with a common stack configuration and/or coal-fired EGUs serving generators with nameplate capacity greater than or equal to 100 MW, except circulating fluidized bed units. Additionally, sources with a common stack configuration have the option to install additional monitoring equipment to accurately measure emissions at each individual unit within the facility and EPA assumes certain sources will utilize this option. Finally, the assessment of incremental cost and burden are required for those sources in the three states not currently reporting data under a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season program. Sources in Minnesota are already reporting data for the CSAPR NOX Annual program with almost identical information collection requirements, requiring only a one-time monitoring plan and DAHS update. Most of the affected sources in Nevada and Utah are already reporting data as part of the Acid Rain Program, thus only requiring a monitoring plan and DAHS update as well. For the units that already report to EPA under the Acid Rain Program, with the exception of any one-time costs to update monitoring plans and DAHS, all information collection costs and burden are already reflected in the previously approved ICRs for those other rules (OMB Control Nos. 2060-0258 and 2060-0445).

      For sources that currently monitor and report with a common stack configuration, it is estimated that a total of 5 units would elect to install additional monitoring equipment. EPA expects each of the five units may elect to upgrade their monitoring equipment to monitor on a unit-specific basis instead of at that common stack. EPA believes the burden and costs associated with monitors for these units have been previously accounted for in current ICRs. The emissions-related costs under the ARP and CSAPR ICRs are determined on a per unit basis for each unit in the program including those in a common stack configuration. Due to this methodology in previous ICRs, the start-up costs for installation of monitoring equipment on these additional units has already been represented.

      Additionally, there are 148 units within the states of Minnesota, Nevada, and Utah that currently follow Part 75 monitoring methodologies but will need to make a one-time monitoring plan and DAHS update to report the necessary ozone season data. One-time monitoring plan and DAHS updates will also need to be made for 125 units that will require additional monitoring to report daily NOx emission rates.

      There are an estimated 15 units in Nevada and Utah that do not already report data to EPA according to 40 CFR part 75 and that would need to implement one of the Part 75 monitoring methodologies, including certification of monitoring systems or implementation of the low mass emissions methodology. These units would also require monitoring plan and DAHS updates.

      Of these fifteen units, two units would be expected to adopt low mass emissions (LME) as the monitoring method, twelve would be expected to adopt Appendix D monitoring methods, and one would be expected to adopt CEMS monitoring methods.

2.0  Need for and Use of the Collection

   2.1  Need / Authority for the Collection

      Emissions data are of vital importance to EPA for fulfilling a host of monitoring, standard-setting, rulemaking, reviewing, and reporting duties. Allowance-related data are essential elements of regulatory approaches that use allowance trading as a mechanism to reduce the cost of achieving environmental objectives. Certificates of representation and other registration forms are needed to ensure authoritative and timely action by sources within the deadlines essential to operation of an effective allowance trading program, to relieve retired sources of compliance requirements, and to enable non-source entities to participate in allowance trading activities.

      Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)  -  often referred to as the "good neighbor" provision  -  requires all states, within three years of EPA's promulgation of a new or revised national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), to revise their SIPs to prohibit certain emissions of air pollutants because of the adverse impact those emissions would have on air quality in other states. The first four CSAPR trading programs at 40 CFR part 97, subparts AAAAA through DDDDD, were promulgated in 2011 to fully or partially address multiple states' good neighbor obligations with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. The fifth CSAPR trading program at 40 CFR part 97, subpart EEEEE, was promulgated in 2016 to fully or partially address multiple states' good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The sixth CSAPR trading program at 40 CFR part 97, subpart GGGGG, was promulgated in 2021 to fully address multiple states' remaining good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The current rulemaking will amend the sixth CSAPR trading program at 40 CFR part 97, subpart GGGGG, to address state's obligations under the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

      CAA section 169A, 42 U.S.C. § 7491, contains provisions addressing the impairment of visibility in certain areas, including requirements for certain sources to install and operate best available retrofit technology (BART). EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e) allow alternatives to BART under some circumstances. The Texas SO2 Trading Program at 40 CFR part 97, subpart FFFFF, was promulgated in 2017 as a BART alternative for Texas sources.

      EPA's promulgation of the CSAPR trading programs is supported by three additional statutory provisions. First, CAA section 110(c)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c)(1), requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate a FIP at any time within two years after he or she finds that a state has failed to make a required SIP submission, finds that a SIP submission is incomplete, or disapproves a SIP submission. Second, CAA section 301(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7601(a)(1), gives the Administrator general authority to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his or her statutory functions. Finally, CAA section 301(d)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 7601(d)(4), authorizes the Administrator to prescribe such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to administer CAA provisions in Indian country, including Indian reservation lands and other areas of Indian country over which EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.

   2.2  Practical Utility / Users of the Data

      Accurate data from emissions monitoring under 40 CFR part 75 is indispensable to successful implementation of the CSAPR and Texas trading programs for two reasons:

   ●	Accurate emissions data is integral in EPA and state assessment of the impact of the trading programs in reducing NOX and SO2 emissions, and therefore in assisting states in meeting the ozone and fine particulate matter NAAQS and addressing visibility-related requirements. By reducing levels of NOX and SO2 emissions, the trading programs reduce the adverse effects of the transport of ozone and fine particles and their precursors from upwind states.

   ●	EPA enforces the trading programs (in part) by comparing emissions data measured, recorded, and reported under 40 CFR part 75 from affected sources with the number of allowances held in the respective compliance accounts of such affected sources.

      Information collected on allowance transfers is used by EPA to track allowances for the purpose of determining compliance with the NOX and SO2 trading programs. Information on allowance transfers is also used by participants in the allowance market and the public to evaluate the activities of affected sources and is used by EPA for program evaluation.

      Certificates of representation are used to identify a single individual (and optionally a single alternate individual) authorized to represent and act on behalf of all owners and operating personnel of each affected unit. Without a designated representative, disagreements among joint owners of a unit or lack of clear authority could hamper the operation of an effective allowance trading program by impeding timely submission of quality-assured emissions data or timely decisions with respect to allowance transfers needed for program compliance. Other one-time registration forms allow qualifying sources or non-source parties to efficiently manage their own participation in the programs, including allowance trading activities.

      Together, the emissions data, allowance data, and various registration forms help to provide the accountability necessary to allow the NOX and SO2 trading programs to function, thereby avoiding the need to pursue costlier command-and-control approaches for achieving environmental objectives.

3.0  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

   3.1  Nonduplication

      Reporting formats for affected sources for the CSAPR and Texas trading programs are integrated with existing reporting formats under 40 CFR part 75. These reporting formats are currently used by ARP-affected units to meet reporting requirements related to SO2 and NOX under Title IV of the Clean Air Act. For a unit subject to more than one of these programs, a single quarterly submission is used to satisfy the quarterly reporting requirements for all programs.

      Information collection procedures under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs for submitting and updating certificates of representation, identifying retired units, and establishing non-source general accounts in the allowance tracking system are similarly integrated with the analogous procedures under the ARP. In each case, a representative can submit a single form to address the analogous requirements under all applicable programs.

   3.2  Public Notice

      The notice and comment period for this ICR were provided under the Federal "Good Neighbor Plan" for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard proposed rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668).

   3.3  Consultations

      The information collection requirements for the CSAPR and Texas trading programs are largely based on the analogous requirements initially developed for the ARP and promulgated in 40 CFR parts 72, 73, and 75, as modified for use in subsequent trading programs under the NOX SIP Call and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The requirements have evolved based on the trading programs' needs, EPA's experience administering those programs and a similar trading program established by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), and consultations with interested parties.

      Initial development of the ARP's reporting requirements involved a multi-stakeholder advisory committee that included representatives of states, industry, and environmental groups.  EPA conducted similar processes when modifying the reporting requirements to implement the trading program under the NOX SIP Call and held workshops with states that participated in the NOX SIP Call or OTC programs to discuss lessons learned in those programs when formulating the emission trading requirements of CAIR. In 2009, EPA held a series of discussions with stakeholders to identify potential options for addressing states' good neighbor obligations following the remand of CAIR. EPA incorporated those comments from those discussions into CSAPR. The requirements for each successive trading program have been established through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Additionally, EPA has had frequent interaction with affected sources and states in the course of implementing the ARP, NOX SIP Call, CAIR, and CSAPR trading programs.

      In 2021, in coordination with renewing the ICR for the Acid Rain Program, EPA consulted with a small number of stakeholders to receive feedback on burdens associated with the Acid Rain, CSAPR, and Texas SO2 trading programs. The respondents were various industry representatives including utility employees, monitoring system vendors, and utility consultants who were asked to evaluate the most recently estimated burdens from the Acid Rain ICR. The feedback received indicated those burden hours and costs are slightly conservative estimates for certain tasks but remain sufficient estimates. Due to sources reporting the same information in the same manner for all of these programs, the burden estimates for this ICR are consistent with those for the Acid Rain ICR.

   3.4  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

      Submittal of allowance trading and emissions information on at least an annual basis (and/or on an ozone-season basis, as applicable) provides the data necessary to determine whether state budgets have been exceeded. If this information collection were not carried out at least annually for sources subject to the CSAPR and Texas trading programs, EPA would not be able to verify that emission reductions necessary to meet each state's NOX and SO2 emission budgets were being achieved. Meeting the annual or seasonal budgets is a central compliance requirement under each of the trading programs.

      Quarterly collection of emissions data allows for frequent checking of data for errors and provides rapid feedback to industry of needed adjustments to data collection systems, thereby promoting more accurate and reliable emissions data. Also, existing federal and state emission monitoring programs often require reporting on a quarterly or even monthly basis. Less frequent collection, such as semi-annually or annually, would increase the amount of preparation and review time at the end of the reporting period both for regulated sources and for EPA, and would slow down the process of compliance determination.

   3.5  General Guidelines

      This ICR does not violate any of OMB's general guidelines for information collections.

   3.6  Confidentiality

      Emissions or allowance-related data that are submitted to EPA under this rule generally will be considered in the public domain and will not be treated as confidential. CAA section 114(c), 42 U.S.C. § 7414(c), specifically requires that estimates or measurements of emissions must be treated as non-confidential. Under Agency procedures, data items relating to the computation of emissions may be identified as sensitive by a state and are then treated as "state-sensitive" by EPA. The potentially state-sensitive items include process rate, boiler design capacity, emission estimation codes, percent space heat, operating rate, and maximum operation rate/hour. Where federal and state requirements are inconsistent, the appropriate EPA Regional Office should be consulted.

   3.7  Sensitive Questions

      This information collection does not ask any questions concerning sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private.

4.0  The Respondents and the Information Requested

   4.1  Respondents / North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes

      The CSAPR and Texas trading programs generally apply to stationary, fossil fuel-fired boilers and combustion turbines serving generators larger than 25 MW producing electricity for sale.  In the North American Industry Classification System, these sources are generally classified as NAICS code 221112  -  Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Power Generation. Covered sources are subject to recurring emissions-related information collection requirements and one-time or occasional registration requirements.

      Under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs' allowance trading provisions, all covered sources may engage in optional allowance trading activities. Opportunities to participate in allowance trading activities are also open to non-source entities. Use of these opportunities is subject to trading-related information collection requirements and, in the case of non-source entities, a one-time registration requirement.

      The CSAPR and Texas trading programs do not impose any information collection obligations on states and do not establish any program-specific permitting requirements that would implicate state and local permitting authorities. However, a state whose sources participate in a CSAPR trading program under either a FIP or a SIP has certain options to determine how CSAPR emission allowances are allocated each year among the state's affected sources. Use of this opportunity triggers requirements to submit allowance allocation information.

   4.2  Information Requested

      This section describes the data items requested from affected sources for the collections described in this ICR and defines the activities in which respondents must engage to assemble, submit, or store these data items.

      (i)  Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements

         (a)  Certificates of Representation and Other One-Time Registration Forms

      For each affected source under each of the CSAPR trading programs and the Texas SO2 trading program, the designated representative must submit a certificate of representation. The certificate must be updated as needed to reflect any changes in the units at the source or in the identities of owners, operators, or the designated representative or alternate. A complete certificate of representation for a source includes:

   ●	Identification of the source and the units at the source;
   ●	Dates on which the units commenced commercial operation;
   ●	Name and contact information for the designated representative and alternate (if applicable);
   ●	A list of the owners and operators of each unit; and
   ●	A certification statement and signature of the designated representative and alternate (if applicable).

      Certification applications are to be kept for a period of five years pursuant to the general requirements imposed for Title V permitted facilities.

      The CSAPR and Texas trading programs exempt a retired unit from emission monitoring and reporting requirements following receipt of appropriate notification from the designated representative. A complete retired unit exemption form includes:

   ●	Identification of the source and unit;
   ●	Date on which the unit was or will be permanently retired;
   ●	A certification statement and signature of the designated representative or alternate.

      Non-source entities participating in allowance trading activities under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs must submit an application to establish a general account in the allowance tracking system. For purposes of this ICR, it is assumed that the burden and costs of all general account applications are accounted for in the ARP ICR.

         (b)  Allowance Tracking

	Sources and other trading program participants must submit allowance transfer, allowance deduction, and compliance assurance information, as necessary.

 	The authorized account representative for an allowance tracking system account is required to provide the following information for each transfer of allowances to another account:

●	Allowance tracking system account number;
●	Name, phone number, and facsimile number of the authorized account representative, along with the representative's signature and date of submission; and
●	Serial numbers of allowances to be transferred.

 	In addition, if the designated representative for a source chooses to identify the specific serialized allowances to be deducted from the source's allowance tracking system account for annual reconciliation, then the following information is required:

●	Allowance tracking system account number;
●	Type of deduction;
●	Serial numbers of the allowance blocks to be deducted; and
●	Dated signature of the designated representative.

	In the event that total emissions in a state during a control period ever exceeded the state's emission budget by more than a specified variability limit, some sources in the state would be required to submit additional information for compliance assurance. For purposes of this ICR, it is assumed that no such exceedances will occur.

 	Where a state has elected to determine allowance allocations, the state must submit a list identifying the units or other entities to which allowances are being allocated and the numbers of allowances being allocated to each unit or entity.

         (c)  Emissions Monitoring and Reporting

      Sources affected under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs are required to monitor NOX and/or SO2 mass emissions and record and report emissions data following the procedures of 40 CFR part 75. The emissions monitoring requirements specify that affected sources must (1) submit a monitoring plan for each affected unit at a source, (2) submit data for certification of each monitor, (3) record hourly operational, pollutant monitor, and flow monitor data for each affected unit, and (4) submit quarterly reports of their emissions data to EPA.

      Respondents are required under 40 CFR 75.64 to submit the quarterly NOX and SO2 mass emissions data via direct electronic submission to EPA. Such data must include a certification statement by the designated representative of the facility attesting to the accuracy, truthfulness, and completeness of the submission. Generally, all monitoring records are required to be kept for three years.

      (ii)  Respondent Activities

      Industry respondents' tasks to meet the certificate of representation requirement are to submit the certificate when a source first becomes subject to a particular trading program and to submit an updated certificate whenever there are changes in the units at the source or changes in the source's owners, operators, or designated representative. The task to meet the retired unit exemption notification requirement is to submit a one-time form. These forms may be submitted on paper or electronically through the CAMD Business System.

      Industry respondents' only required task for allowance tracking is occasional submission of allowance transfer forms as necessary to ensure that sufficient allowances are in a source's compliance account as of each compliance deadline. Additional allowance transfer forms may be submitted by industry or non-source entity respondents as desired, and industry respondents may submit optional allowance deduction forms as desired. These forms may be submitted on paper or electronically through the CAMD Business System.

      Industry respondents' primary tasks to meet the emissions monitoring and reporting requirements are: (1) completing and submitting appropriate monitoring plans; (2) conducting tests to certify monitors and submitting test results to EPA; (3) recording hourly emissions and operational data (this activity is generally performed electronically); (4) performing operation and maintenance activities associated with monitoring, including quality assurance activities; (5) assuring data quality, preparing quarterly reports of emissions data, and submitting these reports to EPA; and (6) responding to error messages generated by such submissions. In addition, respondents must purchase the necessary monitoring hardware and electronic data reporting software (or software upgrades).

      Under the CSAPR programs, states have the option to submit state-determined CSAPR allowance allocations that are calculated according to the state's procedures. Those allocation determinations are annually submitted to the EPA by specified deadlines. For the purposes of this ICR, EPA believes the burden and costs for state allocation determinations are already accounted for in the current CSAPR ICR (OMB Control Number 2060-0667) and there will no incremental burden or costs associated with this rulemaking.

5.0	The Information Collected  -  Agency Activities, Collection Methods,
and Information Management

   5.1  Agency Activities

      EPA activities related to the CSAPR and Texas trading programs include: (1) reviewing and processing certificates of representation and retired unit exemptions; (2) allocating allowances to affected units, or reviewing states' allocations, and recording the allocations; (3) reviewing and recording allowance transfers and deductions; (4) reviewing monitoring plans and monitor certification applications; (5) processing, reviewing, and evaluating reports of quarterly emissions data from affected units, providing feedback, and storing the data; (6) calculating/reviewing annual and/or seasonal emissions from affected sources, and aggregating such annual and/or seasonal emissions for compliance assurance purposes; and (7) reviewing total annual emissions data submitted to track each state's progress toward meeting its budgets and creating a summary report of emissions. EPA also answers respondents' questions and conducts audits of data submissions.

   5.2  Collection Methodology and Management

      To ensure consistency across sources and to expedite data entry, EPA requires that standard formats used for reporting under 40 CFR part 75 be used to submit the information collected for the CSAPR and Texas trading programs.

      Several computer systems and associated databases have been developed to (1) track allowance activity, (2) record quarterly emissions monitoring data, and (3) calculate the number of allowances to be deducted each year. These systems and databases are designed to provide easy access to information for use by the Agency, states, the regulated community, and the general public. EPA provides access to the data on emissions and allowance activity in both detailed and summary formats on the Clean Air Markets Division website.

   5.3  Small Entity Flexibility

      The CSAPR trading programs apply to fossil fuel-fired units (stationary boilers and combustion turbines) that serve an electrical generator with nameplate capacity greater than 25 MWe.  Some cogeneration units and solid waste incinerators are exempt from CSAPR trading programs if they meet certain criteria. The Texas SO2 Trading Program applies to a subset of CSAPR-affected units.

      The low mass emissions provisions under 40 CFR 75.19 provide for optional reduced monitoring, quality assurance, and reporting requirements for certain units that combust natural gas and/or fuel oil. Such units must emit no more than 100 tons of NOX annually, 50 tons of NOX during the May-September ozone season, and 25 tons of SO2 annually, and must calculate no more than these same amounts based on specified procedures for calculating and reporting emissions. Units that qualify are exempted from certain requirements to install and operate monitoring equipment, conduct fuel sampling, and perform quality assurance or quality control tests. Moreover, emissions reporting requirements are significantly simplified for these units.

      Gas- or oil-fired units that do not qualify for the low mass emissions unit provisions under 40 CFR part 75 may still meet criteria that allow for the use of alternative methods to measure emissions. As discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the final ARP regulations (October 19, 1992), smaller utilities are more likely to be dependent on these oil- and gas-fired units, especially very small utilities.

   5.4  Collection Schedule

      Collection frequency under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs is on a quarterly basis. All affected industry sources must use the Emission Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) to submit monitoring plan, quality assurance, certification test, and emissions data to EPA quarterly. In addition, the programs require the collection of allowance trading information as transfers are submitted, as well as information regarding other "event" submissions made on a one-time or annual basis.

6.0  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

   6.1  Estimating Respondent Burden

      This section estimates respondents' burden and cost to meet the information collection requirements described above. To estimate the burden and/or cost of each requirement, EPA utilized prior estimates of the costs of activities, estimates provided by affected utilities in comments to the Agency, and/or estimates based on the Agency's experience in implementing existing trading programs.

      For purposes of this ICR, most emissions-related burdens and costs are calculated only for units not currently accounted for under the ARP, NOx SIP Call or CSAPR ICRs. Additionally, some newly affected units under the CSAPR NOx Ozone Season Group 3 program are already subject to the emissions monitoring and reporting requirements under ARP, NOx SIP Call, or CSAPR and will need to make one-time updates to now report additional data. EPA believes that the associated ongoing burdens and costs for those units already subject to monitoring and reporting requirements are accounted for under the ARP, NOx SIP Call, or CSAPR ICRs.

      Burden and costs associated with allowance-related activities and submittal of certificates of representation and other registration forms are calculated based on the estimated numbers of transactions. The estimates reflect transactions by those newly affected sources under the CSAPR NOx Ozone Season Group 3 program.

      Table 2 summarizes the annual industry respondent burden for registration-related, allowance-related, and emissions-related activities.  The following discussion describes how the burden estimates were derived.

      (i)  Respondent Burden Related to Certificates of Representation and Other One-Time Registration Forms

      Under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs, the designated representative for each affected source must submit a certificate of representation to EPA. This ICR accounts for the one-time certificate of representation submittal required by newly affected units not currently subject to the ARP or CSAPR. Based on estimates in the ARP ICR, EPA believes that all such submittals require about two hours of managerial time and three hours of technical time. EPA believes that any certificate of representation updates that may occur for newly affected units is accounted for under the ARP and CSAPR ICRs.

      (ii)  Respondent Burden Related to Allowance Tracking

      Based on the number of allowance transfers recorded by EPA for all CSAPR trading programs for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 control periods, EPA estimates that each source will submit approximately two allowance transfers each year. The Agency estimates that each transaction submitted will involve about one hour each of managerial and technician time.

      Because compliance under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs is determined on a facility basis rather than a unit basis, allowance deduction forms are also generally submitted for facilities rather than individual units. From experience, EPA estimates that these optional forms will be submitted for approximately one half of all affected facilities, and that each transaction submitted will involve about one hour of managerial time and two hours of technician time.

      (iii)  Respondent Burden Related to Emissions Monitoring and Reporting

      For emissions monitoring and reporting, the respondent burden varies depending on the monitoring approach followed by the unit and the trading programs in which the unit participates. The burden and costs in Table 2 are broken out for various groups of respondents to reflect these differences. As noted above, EPA believes that the emissions-related information collection burden and costs of the CSAPR and Texas trading programs are mainly accounted for in the ARP ICR, and this ICR therefore accounts for emissions-related burden and costs for units newly subject to the monitoring requirements or those units that must make one-time updates.

      The CSAPR and Texas trading programs generally require all affected sources to monitor their NOX and/or SO2 emission rate and heat input to determine NOX mass emissions and/or SO2 mass emissions. Coal-fired units use NOX, SO2, and stack flow CEMS to meet those requirements. Oil and gas-fired units have alternatives. For SO2, these units can use fuel sampling and analysis (or an SO2 default factor for pipeline natural gas) combined with a fuel flowmeter. In addition, peaking units that burn natural gas and/or fuel oil may use an alternative method for calculating NOX emission rates. The regulations also allow certain low mass emissions units to use assumed emissions factors together with operational data to calculate emissions.

      The monitoring and emissions data collected are reported to EPA through the submission of quarterly reports. A majority of the newly affected units already submit these reports and the burden is covered under the ARP, NOX SIP Call, or current CSPAR ICR. For the purposes of this ICR, the burden and costs are captured for those newly affected units that do not currently submit quarterly reports. Due to the units being subject to an ozone season program, EPA estimates the units will submit quarterly reports for only the two quarters of each year that encompass the May-September ozone season.

Start-up Activities

      For many sources, a large part of the overall emissions monitoring burden consists of start-up costs for the acquisition, installation, and testing of monitoring equipment.  For units already subject to the ARP, NOX SIP Call, or CSAPR, the burden and costs for both NOX and SO2 monitoring equipment are accounted for in the ARP, NOX SIP Call, or CSAPR ICRs. This ICR includes annualized start-up/capital costs as well as O&M burden and costs for any monitoring equipment needed by units newly subject to the applicable monitoring and reporting requirements of the CSAPR trading programs.

Regulatory Review

      The ICR includes an allocation of time for the managerial and technical staff to review the CSAPR regulatory requirements as well as the XML formats and instructions associated with electronic emissions data submissions. For purposes of review, the estimated annual burden for each source is four hours each for managerial and technician time.

Response to Error Messages

      The Agency provides feedback for errors that are found in monitoring plans or other reports. The Agency estimates that for each newly affected unit, an owner or operator will spend approximately six hours of managerial time and eighteen hours of technician time responding to these error messages each year.

DAHS Debugging

      An estimated burden to fix problems with the DAHS software used to report in the 40 CFR part 75 formats was included in previous ICRs for most newly affected Group 3 units. For those units newly subject to the emissions monitoring requirements, EPA estimates that for each unit, one managerial and four technician hours will be required annually for occasional debugging.

DAHS Updates

	The DAHS software may need to be updated when the monitoring and reporting requirements for a unit are altered. Under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 program certain newly affected units that already follow Part 75 monitoring will need to update the DAHS software to comply with additional reporting requirements. The DAHS update is a one-time cost for units which is annualized over three years to align with the timeframe of the ICR.

Monitoring Plans

      The regulations require submittal of monitoring plans. Units newly subject to Part 75 monitoring and reporting requirements will need to submit an initial monitoring plan. As described in the ARP ICR, EPA estimates this will require ten hours of managerial and ten hours of technical time to complete. Units newly subject to the Part 75 monitoring and reporting requirements will need to submit a new monitoring plan. EPA averaged the number of units required to submit a new monitoring plan over three years to accurately represent the total burden and cost. For those units already subject to Part 75, the effort involved in developing and maintaining the monitoring plans are incorporated into the overall reporting burden estimate, which is accounted for in previous ICRs.

Monitor Certification/Recertification

	Initial certification burdens and costs for new monitoring equipment are considered part of start-up activities since these costs are often part of the overall purchase expense for the equipment. Sources occasionally experience burdens for recertification to the extent a change in a monitoring system requires recertification. The burden and costs for any newly affected sources that may require monitors to be recertified are reflected in the current ARP or CSAPR ICRs.

Quality Assurance

	Quality assurance (QA) activities and other routine maintenance for monitoring systems is the largest burden item under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs. These requirements generally include daily, quarterly, and annual QA requirements, depending on the monitoring approach being used. For reporting units that use a CEMS, the Agency has assumed a per unit labor burden based on a variety of sources, including the existing ARP ICR, information provided by sources, a CEM cost model developed by EPA, and comments submitted in response to the NOX SIP Call. For units that rely on alternative methodologies, reduced labor burden estimates apply because the quality assurance activities for the accepted methods are less than for a CEMS. Consistent with the existing ARP ICR, the labor burden is expected to be almost entirely technician labor.

Quarterly Reports

	Tasks performed by utilities in preparing quarterly reports include: (1) assuring the quality of the data, (2) preparing the quarterly report, (3) revising the monitoring plan, if necessary, (4) preparation of hard copy documentation accompanying the quarterly reports, and (5) managerial review. The existing ARP ICR was used as the basis for these estimates.

   6.2  Estimating Respondent Costs

      Table 2 summarizes the annual industry respondent costs for registration-related, allowance-related, and emissions-related activities. The following discussion describes how the costs were derived.

      (i)  Estimating Respondent Labor Costs

      In estimating labor costs for industry, EPA used the following amounts: $108.89 per hour for managers and $77.15 per hour for technicians. These rates were updated in coordination with the rates identified for the Acid Rain ICR (OMB Control No. 2060-0258) and are based on the Current Employment Cost Index, September 2020. The Employment Cost Index values were obtained from "Table 5: Private Industry; by occupational group and industry" from the Employment Cost Index Historical Listing (https://www.bls.gov/web/eci/echistrynaics.pdf) which indicates the total compensation, including benefits, for private industry workers in various occupational categories.

      (ii)  Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

      Capital/start-up costs include the cost of installing required CEMS or alternatives.  Operation and maintenance costs (exclusive of labor costs) reflect ongoing costs to a unit and include both contractor costs for the required recertification, diagnostic, and quality assurance (QA) testing, and other direct maintenance-related expenses (e.g., spare parts and calibration gases). These cost estimates have been derived from EPA CEM cost models, existing ICRs, Agency staff experience under the ARP, NOX SIP Call, CAIR, and CSAPR programs, and supplemental estimates provided by affected utilities and others related to the various cost items. These costs are assumed to include incremental calibration gas costs consistent with the former ICR for the Protocol Gas Verification Program (OMB Control Number 2060-0626).

      For units newly subject to monitoring and reporting requirements, this ICR includes ongoing annualized start-up/capital costs as well as ongoing O&M costs for any monitoring equipment needed by the unit to meet the applicable monitoring and reporting requirements of the CSAPR trading programs.

      (iii)  Capital/Start-up vs. Operating and Maintenance (O & M) Costs

      Capital costs reflect one-time costs for purchase of equipment, or one-time updates to equipment, which will be used over a period of years. Conversely, operating and maintenance costs are those costs which are incurred on an annual or other scheduled basis. For instance, costs associated with quality assurance activities, such as spare parts or contractor costs for work, will be incurred on an annual basis.

      (iv)  Annualizing Capital Costs

      The capital costs for the initial purchase of equipment, in coordination with the ARP and CSAPR ICRs, were annualized at a rate of seven percent, (i.e., the annualized capital cost was calculated assuming money to purchase the capital equipment was borrowed at a seven percent annual interest rate). The cost of the loan was amortized over the life of the loan to repay the borrowed amount plus interest. The result is the annualized capital cost reported. The annualized cost of the necessary capital purchases varies by the type of monitoring methodology. Table 2 contains a breakdown of these annualized capital costs by monitoring methodology.

      For the purposes of this ICR, a one-time cost for DAHS updates is applied to certain units subject to additional reporting requirements. This one-time cost is annualized over three years to align with the length of the ICR approval. The DAHS update cost is shown in Table 2.

   6.3  Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

      Table 3 summarizes estimated Agency burden and costs. The following discussion describes how the estimates were derived.

      (i)  Agency Burden Related to Certificates of Representation and Other One-Time Registration Forms

      The Agency must review and process each updated certificate of representation and retired exemption form submitted by industry respondents. EPA estimates that the time required is 0.5 hours per updated certificate of representation and 0.3 hours per retired unit exemption.

      (ii)  Agency Burden Related to Allowance Tracking

      Most allowance transfer and deduction forms are submitted electronically using the CAMD Business System. These transactions are verified and processed automatically at no incremental cost to the Agency. EPA estimates that approximately 1% of the submissions each year will be submitted on paper, and that review and processing of paper submissions will require one hour per allowance transfer form and one half-hour per allowance deduction form.

      The costs of the computer systems used by the Agency in allowance tracking activities are accounted for under the ARP ICR.

      (iii)  Agency Burden Related to Emissions Monitoring and Reporting

      Agency activities related to the monitoring and reporting of emissions data include reviewing monitoring plans and monitor certification applications; processing, reviewing, and evaluating reports of quarterly emissions data from affected units, providing feedback, and storing the data; calculating/reviewing annual emissions from affected sources, and aggregating such annual emissions for compliance assurance purposes; and reviewing total annual emissions data submitted to track each state's progress toward meeting its budgets and creating a summary report of emissions. The Agency estimates that these activities will require one hour per quarterly report submitted.

      The costs of the computer systems used by the Agency in emissions-related activities are accounted for under the ARP ICR.

      (iv)  Agency Labor Costs

	Federal Agency labor rates were assumed to be $84.82 per hour. This labor rate was derived from the federal government's 2021 U.S. Office of Personnel Management General Schedule "Salary Table 2021-GS" (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/21Tables/html/GS.aspx  using the factors in Table 1 below.

                 Table 1:  Determination of Federal Wage Rates

                                Labor category
                                    Factors
                                     Total
Annual salary of technical staff, GS 13, Step 8

                                                                        $98,011
Annual cost of supervisory staff, GS 15, Step 8
                                                                       $136,234

Factor (1/11) applied to cost of supervisory staff
                                                                           0.09

                                                                    $12,261.06
Benefits
                                                                            1.6

Total cost per FTE

                                                                   $176,435.30
Total hourly cost (total cost per FTE divided by 2,080 hours per year)

                                                                        $84.82

   6.4  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

      This ICR includes estimated allowance-related and emissions-related burden and costs for industry respondents not currently accounted for under the ARP, NOx SIP Call, or CSAPR ICRs. EPA believes that most of the emissions-related information collection burden and costs for sources and units already subject to the monitoring and reporting requirements are fully accounted for in the ARP, NOX SIP Call, or CSAPR ICRs (OMB Control Numbers 2060-0258, 2060-0445, 2060-0667). Accordingly, this ICR includes estimated emissions-related burden and costs for sources that are not currently subject to the Part 75 monitoring and reporting requirements under the ARP, NOX SIP Call, or CSAPR programs and sources which need to make one-time DAHS upgrades due to altered reporting requirements. EPA estimates that there are approximately 6 sources with 15 units newly subject to emissions-related information collection requirements and 115 sources with 273 units that will need one-time upgrades. Table 2 provides estimates of annual industry respondent burden and costs. Estimates of the Agency's burden and costs are provided in Table 3.

       Table 2:  Annual Industry Respondent Burden and Cost by Activity

                           Manager $108.89 per hour
                         Technician   $77.15 per hour
                           Respondent hours per year
                        Respondent labor cost per year
                          Cont. O&M cost per year
                       Start-up / capital cost per year
                     Number of respondents / transactions
                             Total hours per year
                        Total Capital and O&M costs
                              Total cost per year

                     Registration-related burden and costs
Certificate of representation
                                                                              2
                                                                              3
                                                                              5
                                                                           $449

                                                                              6
                                                                             30

                                                                         $2,694

                      Allowance-related burden and costs
Allowance transfer form submissions[1]
                                                                              1
                                                                              1
                                                                              2
                                                                           $186

                                                                             12
                                                                             24

                                                                         $2.232
Allowance deduction form submissions[2]
                                                                              1
                                                                              2
                                                                              3
                                                                           $279

                                                                              3
                                                                              9

                                                                           $837

                      Emissions-related burden and costs
Review of regulations[3]
                                                                              4
                                                                              4
                                                                              8
                                                                           $744

                                                                             68
                                                                            544

                                                                        $50,592
Response to error messages
                                                                              6
                                                                             18
                                                                             24
                                                                         $2,042

                                                                             12
                                                                            288

                                                                        $24,504
DAHS Updates[4]

                                                                           $190
                                                                            273

                                                                        $51,870
                                                                        $51,870
DAHS debugging
                                                                              1
                                                                              4
                                                                              5
                                                                           $417

                                                                             12
                                                                             60

                                                                         $5,004
New Unit Monitoring Plans[5]
                                                                             10
                                                                             10
                                                                             20
                                                                         $1,860

                                                                              5
                                                                            100

                                                                         $9,300
Start-up/capital items and performance of QA testing and maintenance, by monitoring approach:
      Solid fuel units: SO2 CEMS (where needed), NOX CEMS, and stack flow CEMS
                                                                             50
                                                                            480
                                                                            530
                                                                        $42,477
                                                                       $31,949
                                                                        $30,282
                                                                              1
                                                                            530
                                                                        $62,231
                                                                       $104,708
      Gas/oil peaking units: Appendix D fuel monitoring, Appendix E, or LME methods
                                                                              5
                                                                             30
                                                                             35
                                                                         $2,859
                                                                        $1,843
                                                                         $2,359
                                                                             14
                                                                            490
                                                                        $58,828
                                                                        $98,854
Data quality assurance and preparation and submittal of quarterly reports, by reporting frequency:[6]
      Ozone season-only reporters (two quarterly reports/year)
                                                                              8
                                                                             21
                                                                             29
                                                                         $2,491

                                                                             15
                                                                            435

                                                                        $37,365
Totals
                                                                             88
                                                                            573
                                                                            661
                                                                        $53,804
                                                                        $33,792
                                                                        $32,831
                                                                            421
                                                                           2510
                                                                       $172,929
                                                                       $387,960
            [1] Estimate is based on 2018-2020 average annual number of transfers and assumes 2 transfers per source. Number of sources reflects those not included in a previous ICR.
            2 Assumes half of sources will submit optional allowance deduction forms.
            [3] Applies to sources newly subject to monitoring and reporting requirements and those with additional reporting requirements
            4 Applies to units making a one-time DAHS update due to revised monitoring and reporting requirements.
            [5] Applies to sources newly subject to monitoring and reporting requirements. Number of units averaged over three years to represent annual cost of one-time activity.
            [6] Assumes units newly subject to monitoring and reporting requirements under the CSAPR NOx Ozone Season Group 3 program will elect to report on an ozone season only basis.

						Table 3:  Annual Agency Burden and Cost by Activity

                             Hours per occurrence
                             Cost per occurrence
                             Occurrences per year
                             Total hours per year
                              Total cost per year
Review and processing of certificates of representation.
                                                                            0.5
                                                                           $42
                                                                              5
                                                                            2.5
                                                                           $210
Review and recordation of allowance transfers and notification of transfer participants.[1]
                                                                              1
                                                                            $85
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                             $0
Review and recordation of allowance deductions.[2]
                                                                            0.5
                                                                            $42
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                             $0
Review and processing of quarterly reports and issuance of feedback letters.[3]
                                                                              1
                                                                            $85
                                                                             24
                                                                             24
                                                                         $2,040
Totals
                                                                           26.5
                                                                         $2,250
                        [1] Assumes 1% of all allowance transfers each year are submitted on paper rather than electronically.
                        [2] Assumes 1% of all allowance deductions each year are submitted on paper rather than electronically.
                        [3] Assumes units newly subject to monitoring and reporting requirements (12) will report ozone season only (2 reports/year).

6.5  Bottom-Line Burden Hours and Cost Table

	Table 4 summarizes the bottom-line burden and costs for industry respondents and the Agency.

               Table 4:  Total Estimated Burden and Cost Summary

                             Number of Respondents
                    Total Hours Per Year (All Respondents)
                     Total Cost Per Year (All Respondents)
Industry Respondents
                                                                            121
                                                                          2,510
                                                                       $387,960
EPA
                                                                              1
                                                                           26.5
                                                                         $2,250

   6.6  Burden Statement

      The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 2,510 hours per year for industry respondents, or approximately 21 hours per respondent. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to, or for, a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information; processing, maintaining, disclosing, and providing information; adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; training personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; searching data sources; completing and reviewing the collection of information; and transmitting or otherwise disclosing the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To facilitate comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668 and OMB Control Number 2060-0667 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60157-60160]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18693]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1723; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00457-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a widespread fatigue damage (WFD)
evaluation on Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes,
which found that the circumferential joint at Frame 58 (near the rear
fuselage) is susceptible to WFD. This proposed AD would require a
modification to reinforce the circumferential joints at Frame 58 and,
if necessary, corrective action, as specified in a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation
by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 16,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1723; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material that is proposed for IBR in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website at

ad.easa.europa.eu. It is also available at regulations.gov under Docket
No. FAA-2023-1723.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dowling, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:
206-231-3667; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1723; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00457-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Tim
Dowling, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural
design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage
is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as
a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels.
Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent
frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage
cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with
normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will
grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the
airplane. This condition is known as WFD. It is associated with general
degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details
and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will
certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any
intervention.
    An FAA final rule (``Aging Airplane Program: Widespread Fatigue
Damage;'' 75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January
14, 2011, and amended 14 CFR parts 25, 26, 121, and 129 (commonly known
as the WFD rule). The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent
structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of
certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. Design approval
holders (DAHs) of existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule
are required to establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering
data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators
affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless
an extended LOV is approved.
    The WFD rule does not require identifying and developing
maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not
necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many
LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance
actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary
to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through
separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2023-0053, dated March 14, 2023
(EASA AD 2023-0053) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and -243F
airplanes. The MCAI states that within the scope of WFD evaluations on
Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, it was determined that the
circumferential joint at Frame 58 (near rear fuselage) is susceptible
to WFD. WFD, if not corrected, may lead to crack initiation and
undetected propagation, which could affect the structural integrity of
the airplane.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1723.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2023-0053 specifies procedures for a modification
(including rotating probe inspections for discrepancies and measurement
of the maximum hole diameter at any point in the fastener hole bores on
the circumferential joints) to reinforce the circumferential joints at
Frame 58 and, if any discrepancies (cracking) are found, corrective
action (contacting the manufacturer for instructions and accomplishing
those instructions). This material is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2023-0053 described previously, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2023-0053 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2023-0053 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2023-0053 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2023-
0053. Service information required by EASA AD 2023-0053 for compliance
will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1723
after the FAA final rule is published.

Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the replacement specified in this proposed
AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that certain structure
is replaced before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection
techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard
to flight. The FAA will not grant any extensions of the compliance time
to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without
extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an
extension.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 6 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
368 work-hours x $85 per hour = $31,280......................          $7,700          $38,980         $233,880
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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 airworthiness
directive:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2023-1723; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-
00457-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by October 16, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and -243F
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a widespread fatigue damage (WFD)
evaluation on Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, which found
that the circumferential joint at Frame 58 (near the rear fuselage)
is susceptible to WFD. The FAA is issuing this AD to address WFD in
the affected area. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, may lead
to crack initiation and undetected propagation, which could affect
the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2023-0053, dated March 14, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0053).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0053

    (1) Where EASA AD 2023-0053 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2023-0053.
    (3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2023-0053 specifies ``if,
during the accomplishment of any inspection, which is part of the
modification as required by paragraph (1) of this AD, any
discrepancy, as identified in the SB, is detected, before next
flight, contact Airbus for approved instructions and accomplish
those instructions accordingly,'' this AD requires replacing those
words with ``if, during the accomplishment of any inspection, which
is part of the modification as required by paragraph (1) of this AD,
any cracking is detected, the cracking must be repaired before
further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.''
    (i) Additional AD Provisions
    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tim Dowling,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0053,
dated March 14, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2023-0053, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 24, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-18693 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 58248]
[DOCID:fr05oc05-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52526; File No. SR-NASD-2005-057

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Summary
Orders in the Nasdaq Market Center

September 29, 2005.
    On April 22, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(``Nasdaq''), 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 relating to Summary Orders in the Nasdaq Market
Center. Nasdaq has proposed to allow all participants in the Nasdaq
Market Center to enter attributable and non-attributable Summary
Orders, and to make Summary Orders available for transactions in
exchange-listed securities. Currently, the use of Summary Orders is
restricted to Nasdaq Order-Delivery ECNs for transactions in Nasdaq-
listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on August 25, 2005.\3\ The Commission received no comments on
the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52303 (August 18,
2005), 70 FR 49957 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a self-regulatory organization.\4\
In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act \5\ in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that Summary Orders permit an order entering
party to receive a warning if the price of the order would lock or
cross the best prices then displayed in the Nasdaq Market Center by
rejecting the order back to such order entering party.\6\ The
Commission notes that Summary Orders give the order entering party the
choice of either immediately executing against the available trading
interest or providing liquidity through a posted order. The Commission
notes that Nasdaq has stated that the significance of having such a
choice lies in the potential for having reduced transaction costs as a
liquidity provider.\7\ The Commission notes that Summary Orders are
currently only available to Nasdaq Order-Delivery ECNs. The Commission
notes that the proposal would extend the ability to enter Summary
Orders, on either an attributable or non-attributable basis, to all
Nasdaq Market Center participants. The Commission also notes that the
proposal would extend the usage of Summary Orders to transactions in
exchange-listed securities, in addition to Nasdaq-listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ If the order does not lock or cross the best price, the
system retains it for normal processing.
    \7\ Nasdaq has stated that liquidity providers may, in some
cases, receive an execution fee rebate, thus reducing their
transaction costs. See Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposal, by extending the
availability of Summary Orders to all participants in the Nasdaq Market
Center entering into transactions in Nasdaq-listed or exchange-listed
securities, should increase the level of control Nasdaq Market Center
participants have over the processing of their orders and allow them
potentially to enter into more economically efficient transactions.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\8\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NASD-2005-057) be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5450 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P