This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

1 Originally prepared July 25, 2002. Revised July 31 to incorporate response to " Additional Tufts question # 3" ( see page 12 below).

Page 1 of 23 Response to Riverkeeper Questions Regarding Phase II Proposal Record Revised July 31, 20021 SEABY QUESTIONS 1. I am looking at the impingement data used in the example of 316b and I have a problem. I have been trying to calculate the figures given in Table B4 2. I have gone back to the source Tables B3 2 and B3 3 and the Salem input Excel sheet. I can get the annual impingement data to tally in Table B3 2 by use of the adding the age 1, and Juvenile 1 and 2 fish from the Excel sheet. I then try to move on to get the age 1 equivalents in Table B3 3. For each year I calculate the Year 1 equivalent of the life stage of interest.

For example take 1978 for weakfish Action Juv 1 Juv 2 Age 1 Total From Tab. 6,378,530 11,260 1,466 6,391,256 I cannot get from these values to the total age 1 equivalents of 237,865. Accepting that as correct I cannot get from the mean age 1 equivalent of 65,182 to the value given in the Table B4 2 of 55,856. I have tried following your model in Section A5 3 but I cannot get it to work. Could I have a spreadsheet showing the calculations of a single species such as the weakfish from raw data to the year 1 equivalents? This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 2 of 23 EPA Answer An elaboration of the calculation of age 1 equivalents is provided for the reviewer's convenience in Tables 1 4 below. Table 1 reports the life history parameters that EPA used for modeling weakfish at Salem. These values are included in the workbook " salem. input. data. xls" ( DCN 4 2051). Table 1 also shows the associated survival rates that EPA derived from the basic life history parameters using methods described in Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003). Table 2 provides further elaboration of the values presented in Table 1, and gives an explicit elaboration of how stage specific survival rates are combined to give effective stage specific survival rates from the age of entrainment until age 1. Table 3 reports the stage specific 1978 impingement losses of weakfish, which are included in the workbook " salem. input. data. xls" ( DCN 4 2051). Table 4 associates the values in Table 2 and Table 3 to provide a stage specific accounting of age 1 equivalent losses and indicates where the values so derived were reported in the Salem case study ( Part B of the Case Study Document). Table B3 3 of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) reports the mean annual number of weakfish age 1 equivalents as 65,182, which summarizes weakfish losses during 1978 1998. Table B4 2 reports the mean annual number of weakfish age 1 equivalents as 55,856, which summarizes losses that occurred during 1995, 1997, and a 1998 ( as presented in Table B3 18). The latter time period was selected to represent the current baseline losses at Salem for reasons described in Section B3 7 of Chapter B3.

Table 1. Stage specific weakfish life history parameters ( M, F, fraction vulnerable to fishery) used to derive stage specific weakfish survival rates ( Sj) at Salem. Life history parameter Life stage ( j) M F Fraction of life stage ( j) vulnerable to fishery F adj 1 Z = M+ F adj S j = e Z S* j 2 Egg 1.043 0.00 0.00 0.00000 1.0430 0.3524 0.5211 Yolk sac larvae 1.341 0.00 0.00 0.00000 1.3410 0.2616 0.4147 Post yolk sac larvae 6.3325 0.00 0.00 0.00000 6.3325 0.0018 0.0035 Juvenile stage 1 2.439875 0.00 0.00 0.00000 2.4399 0.0872 0.1604 Juvenile stage 2 1.483788 0.00 0.00 0.00000 1.4838 0.2268 0.3697 Age 1 0.348575 0.25 0.10 0.02237 0.3709 0.6901 0.8166 1. F adj represents fishing mortality rate ( F) adjusted for fraction of age class vulnerable to fishery. 2. S* j represents the stage specific survival rate ( S j) adjusted to account for the fact that the precise within stage age of entrained fish is unknown. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 3 of 23 This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 4 of 23 Table 2. Elaboration of Equation 4 of Section A5 3.1 of the Case Study Document: Example derivation of Sj, 1, the stage specific cumulative survival rate ( as a fraction) from stage at entrainment ( j) to age 1 for weakfish entrained at Salem; the definition of Sj, 1 includes accommodation for unknown within stage age at entrainment.

Life stage ( j) Egg Yolk sac larvae Post yolksac larvae Juvenile 1 Juvenile 2 Age 1 S j, 1 Egg 0.52114 0.26158 0.00178 0.08717 0.22678 0.69008 0.0000048 Yolk sac larvae 0.41469 0.00178 0.08717 0.22678 0.69008 0.0000146 Post yolk sac larvae 0.00355 0.08717 0.22678 0.69008 0.0000702 Juvenile stage1 0.16036 0.22678 0.69008 0.0363669 Juvenile stage2 0.36971 0.69008 0.3697119 Age 1 0.81663 1.1833738 1. S* j represents the stage specific survival rate ( S j) adjusted to account for the fact that the precise within stage age of entrained fish is unknown. 2. 1.18 = ( 0.81663/ 0.6901) = effective inflation factor applicable to fish >= age 1 to offset effects of S* j [ see Section A5 3.1 of Chapter A5 of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) for further explanation]. Table 3. Weakfish impingement losses at Salem NGS in 1978 [ detail from salem. input. data. xls ( DCN 4 2051)].

Life stage ( j) Impingement losses Egg 0 Yolk sac larvae 0 Post yolk sac larvae 0 Juvenile stage 1 6,378,530 Juvenile stage 2 11,260 Age 1 1,466 Total 6,391,256 This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 5 of 23 Table 4. Elaboration of calculations to express 1978 weakfish losses to impingement at Salem as age 1 equivalents.

Life stage ( j) Number of fish impinged S j, 1 Age 1 equivalent losses Egg 0 0.00000479 0.0 Yolk sac larvae 0 0.0000146 0.0 Post yolk sac larvae 0 0.0000702 0.0 Juvenile stage 1 6,378,530 0.0364 231,967.6 Juvenile stage 2 11,260 0.370 4,163.0 Age 1 1,466 1.183 1,734.8 Total 6,391,256 237,865.3 matches Table B3 2 of Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) matches Table B3 3 of Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003)

2. At Salem, how is the silverside age 1 equivalent calculated for entrainment? I do not seem to be able to get this figure. I get 4,886,300, which is some way off the EPA figure in Table B4 3 of 107,867.

EPA Answer Age 1 equivalent losses of silversides were calculated using the same general procedure that is elaborated for age 1 equivalent losses of weakfish in the response to Question # 1, and described in Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003).

3. In Table B4 3, how is the total catch number of the same table obtained? Is it possible to calculate this figure from the information given in the documents? For example, for spot C where they are completely in the fishery at age 1, why is the number lost to the fishery so much less than the age 1 equivalent value?

EPA Answer The metric " Total Catch (#)" presented in Table B4 3 of Chapter B4 of Part B of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) is derived from " Total Catch ( lb)" by the relationship:

N s, k = Y s, k / E s, Equation 1 This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 6 of 23 where:

N s, k = Total Catch (#) = Foregone yield expressed as numbers of landed fish for species s in year k Y s, k = Total Catch ( lb) = Foregone yield expressed as pounds of landed fish for species s in year k E s = Average weight of landed fish ( lbs/ individual) for species s.

The values of E s are not reported explicitly in the case study reports. However, they are provided implicitly by the simple relationship described in Equation 1, above. Values of E s were defined as the expected weight of a landed fish of species s, i. e., as the average weight at age of all age classes statistically weighted by the relative contribution of each age class to the overall age composition of harvested fish. In the case of spot, E s equals 0.41 lbs/ individual. The values N s, k were not used in the benefits analysis except for valuation of foregone recreational catch.

An age 1 equivalent fish represents a living age 1 fish. It is calculated under the assumption of zero ( or negligible) harvest prior to age 1. The number lost to the fishery is considerably less than the number of age 1 equivalents because most harvested fish are older than age 1 ( and therefore fewer because of ongoing natural mortality), and because the fishery typically does not capture every fish that survives to harvestable age.

4. Is there any information on the age structure of impinged fish at any of the case study stations? I know that the fish are measured at Salem but the data does not seem to be in the documents.

EPA Answer The available information about the age composition of impinged fish varies between case studies because of differences in study design and reporting habits among the facilities. In most cases, detailed information about age composition was not available. EPA assumed that impinged fish were age 1 fish unless ages of fish less than 1 were reported, in which case age classes younger than age 1 were enumerated as reported in facility documents. All of the available information about age composition is provided in the input data files that are available in the docket ( see DCN 4 2051). This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 7 of 23 FOLLOW ON QUESTIONS   3 JUL 02 1. National benefits appear to be a linear function of case study benefits, with some facilities representing only themselves and some used as the basis for estimating benefits at other plants. Thus it appears that EPA's estimate could be expressed as National impingement losses = A * Salem + B * Tampa + C * Ohio 29 + D * Whiting + E * Pilgrim + F * Brayton Point + G * Contra Costa + H * Pittsburg + I * Monroe + J * Seabrook A similar equation applies to entrainment losses, perhaps with different coefficients.

Please supply the values of coefficients A through J, suitable for reproducing the EBA estimates of impingement and entrainment losses a) at the 539 facilities that answered the survey, and b) at all 550 in scope facilities.

EPA Answer As suggested in the question, national benefits are calculated as a linear function of the case study benefits. However, EPA did not calculate the coefficients A through J as defined by Riverkeeper. Appendix 1 provides a detailed explanation of how EPA used a multi step procedure to extrapolate from its case study results to national benefit estimates.

2. Do impingement figures include estimates of impingement survival? If so, what survival rate does EPA assume? What is the justification for this assumption?

EPA Answer 3. What is the source of the estimated costs of cooling towers used in the EBA? Were alternative cost estimates examined? Please supply any cost estimates used or considered in this analysis. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 8 of 23 EPA Answer The source of the estimated costs of cooling towers in the EBA is explained in detail in Chapter 2, section 2.2 of the Technical Development Document ( TDD). The TDD provides the basis for the estimates and identifies supporting references. The TDD also provides alternative costing information collected in support of the estimates, but not used.

TUFTS QUESTIONS Wherever relevant, indicate whether responses refer to the universe of 539 in scope facilities, or the extrapolation to 550 facilities.

* indicates items discussed and promised by EPA in the conference call on June 18.

1. The costs and benefits of the policy options presented on p. D1 4 of the EBA do not correspond to the costs and benefits of the options described in the Federal Register. Please provide an explanation of the conversion of EBA options and their costs and benefits into the options, and costs and benefits, cited in the Federal Register.

EPA Answer The benefits differ between the Preamble and the EBA because the benefits in the Preamble were not sample weighted in the same manner as the costs were. The benefits in the Preamble are for the 539 in scope facilities for which EPA had questionnaire data. The benefits in the EBA are for the 550 facilities that EPA believes will be regulated. after the Agency accounts for a very small number of facilities that received a questionnaire from EPA but did not complete and return the questionnaire.

The costs of the policy options presented in the Preamble are total private ( post tax) costs. They correspond to the costs presented in Part B of the EBA. The costs presented on page D1 4 of the EBA are total social ( pre tax) costs. Table D1 2 on page D1 3 presents a comparison between the total private ( post tax) costs and the total social ( pre tax) costs of the different policy options analyzed.

2.* Please provide a summary of the facilities that replied to the questionnaire, showing which facilities have provided flow data that is not confidential. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 9 of 23 EPA Answer See Appendix 2 attached. A copy of this spreadsheet is also available in the docket at entry number DCN 4 4006.

3.* Provide total flow data for all in scope facilities on each water body type.

EPA Answer Flow and waterbody information for specific plants that did not declare this information to be confidential are available in the Docket ( See DCN 4 4006, 316( b) Detailed Questionaniares of In Scope Facilities for Phase II Rulemaking). Data are available in the Docket for each plant considered in each option ( see DCN 4 2550, Model Plant Cost Estimates for Regulatory Options). However, these files contain limited information for each plant and have the identities of the facilities concealed.

4.* Provide a sensitivity analysis showing the results if all impinged and entrained fish were valued, rather than just those that would have been landed. Please provide electronic copies of the spreadsheets used for this analysis.

EPA Answer At the time of the initial teleconference with Riverkeeper, EPA believed it would be able to readily complete such an analysis. However, upon further examination, EPA determined that the effort was beyond the scope of what EPA can accomplish at this time. EPA will consider preparing such a sensitivity analysis for a Notice of Data Availability that the Agency anticipates publishing this fall.

5.* Provide information on the percentage of impinged and entrained fish that were valued in the Ohio River case study, comparable to the information provided for other case studies.

EPA Answer The distribution of entrainment losses by species category are: forage fish: 84.21%; commercial and recreational fish valued: 0.22%; and commercial and recreational fish unvalued: 15.57%. The distribution of impingement losses by species category are: forage fish: 97.67%; commercial and recreational fish valued: 0.01%; and commercial and recreational fish unvalued: 2.24 %.

6. The two San Francisco area case studies valued only striped bass and special status ( threatened and endangered) species. Were there other species for which the data allowed valuation This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 10 of 23 at either Pittsburg or Contra Costa? If so, please list the species and provide summary data on these species.

EPA Answer Records of impingement and entrainment losses at Contra Costa and Pittsburg were reported in Ecological Analysts, Inc. ( 1981a and 1981b) and Southern Energy Delta, LLC ( 2000). Tables 1 through 4 ( Appendix 3) present the records of the losses available in these documents. ( Literature Cited: Southern Energy Delta, LLC. 2000. Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan, Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants. Draft Revision 5, June 30, 2000. Prepared for the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Rosa, CA; Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1981b. Pittsburg Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316b Demonstration. Prepared for PG& E; Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1981a. Contra Costa Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316b Demonstration. Prepared for PG& E.

7.* On p. D4 4 of the case studies, tables D4 5 and D4 6, EPA lists losses in pounds, then multiplies these losses by a value per fish ( rather than per pound) to obtain total valued losses. Please clarify the error involved and provide a correctly labeled version of these tables.

EPA Answer The relevant column heading in Tables D4 5 and D4 6 should read " Commercial Value/ lb" instead of " Commercial Value/ Fish."

8.* The calculation for black drum on case study p. D4 4, footnote to table D4 6, rejects the reported data and substitutes a much lower judgmental alternative. Please provide a narrative explanation of the basis for this alternative. Were similar alternatives used in place of observed data at any other points in the case studies?

EPA Answer To represent realistic losses to the commercial fishery, EPA decided to cap the losses of black drum at double the landings when the black drum fishery was healthy. This was the only case in which estimated impingement and entrainment losses appeared unreasonably high, and therefore this was not done in other case studies.

9.* Please provide any recent studies of nonuse values that support or conflict with the 50% rule used to estimate these values in the EBA. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 11 of 23 EPA Answer Brown. T. 1993. " Measuring Non use Value: A Comparison of Recent Contingent Valuation Studies." In Bergstrom J. C., Benefits and Costs Transfer in Natural Resource Planning. Sixth Interim Report, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics; Athens, GA.

10. Describe any alternative approaches to nonuse values that were considered in the preparation of the EBA, and explain why these approaches were rejected.

EPA Answer In the absence of empirical data, one approach is to describe the nonuse values qualitatively, and not include a quantitative value. Another option that is often used to value nonuse changes is to apply willingness to pay ( WTP) values by household. However, EPA did not find studies and did not have the time or resources to conduct original research to estimate a household WTP for reductions in impingement and entrainment. We believe the 50% rule provides an acceptable though very conservative estimate of nonuse value.

11. Regarding the flow chart summarizing Pittsburg/ Contra Costa case study data, p. E6 2, please clarify the apparent transposition of impingement vs. entrainment data between boxes 3 and 4, and between boxes 2 and 5. Did this error affect any later calculations? Please provide corrected versions of the flow chart and any other calculations affected by this error.

EPA Answer In boxes 4 and 5 of Figure E6 1, the impingement and entrainment numbers are switched due to a clerical error. Box 4 should read " I: 27,200 ( 11,600 lb)" and " E: 185,100 ( 79,000 lb). Box 5 should read " I: 145,00 fish" and " E: 145,000 fish." The dollar values stated in the boxes are correct as they read. This clerical error occurred only in this figure and not in the spreadsheet EPA used for its calculations.

12. The value of forage fish ( per fish) in the Monroe case study appears to be orders of magnitude larger than in other case studies. Please explain the difference. Are there other case studies or plants where the higher forage value seen at Monroe would be appropriate? This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 12 of 23 EPA Answer The value of entrained forage fish from the Monroe case study was estimated to average $ 2.00 per fish, using the methods presented in Section A5 3 of Chapter A5 of Part A of the § 316( b) Phase II Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003). This is much higher than the per fish values obtained for impinged fish at Monroe and for both impinged and entrained fish in the other case studies. We will look into the cause for this difference.

13. Entrainment kills many more fish than impingement at most case study facilities, but the reverse is true ( that is, impingement kills more year 1 equivalent fish than entrainment) at Monroe and Whiting. What accounts for this difference?

EPA Answer EPA notes that there are multiple factors that influence rates of impingement and entrainment. Some of the factors resulting in high impingement rates at Whiting and Monroe are indicated in facility documents in the docket. For example, Jude et al. ( 1983) note that most impingement losses at Monroe are of gizzard shad which may result from ( 1) cold shock making them more susceptible and ( 2) attraction to the warmwater discharge plume. Wapora ( 1980) observed that in November 1979 " The extremely high impingement densities for gizzard shad were the result of an onshore movement by youngof the year individuals."

14. Please provide a list of all the endangered species known to be affected by each of the case study facilities, and describe any attempts EPA made to calculate the value of losses of these species.

EPA Answer EPA does not have a list of endangered species known to be affected at each of the case study facilities. EPA would consider any information it receives concerning this issue.

ADDITIONAL TUFTS QUESTIONS 1. Flow data: are you able to provide information on: a.) water flow at each of the case study facilities and/ or b.) total flow at all of the facilities in each of the five categories EPA uses in its extrapolations ( non gulf estuary, gulf estuary, rivers, ocean, great lakes)? This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 13 of 23 EPA Answer Sum of Operational Flows Per Waterbody Type ( MGD) Estuary/ Tidal River ( Non Gulf) 39,183 Estuary/ Tidal River ( Gulf) 13,793 Freshwater Systems 144,764 Great Lakes 4,617 Oceans 13,457 2. Percent of losses valued in each case study:

a) In all the case studies where commercial or recreational losses are taken into account in the final analysis, we would like to know what percentage of the age 1 equivalent fish lost to I& E were assigned a monetary value. Often it seems that only the fraction that would have been caught by commercial or recreational fishing are valued. In some cases, this percentage is clear from the information provided. In other cases, it is ambiguous.

Can you tell us the percentage of I& E losses that were valued at each site?

EPA Answer As summarized from our teleconference discussions of June 18, 2002, the following text gives the percentages or references to the § 316( b) Phase II Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003):

° For the Delaware case study analysis, this information is provided on pages B6 3 and B6 4. ° For the Ohio River case study analysis, the distribution of entrainment losses by species category is: landed commercial and recreational fish ( 0.22%); forage fish ( 84.21%); and unharvested ( and thus not valued) commercial and recreational species ( 15.57%). The distribution of impingement losses by species category is: landed commercial and recreational fish ( 0.01%); forage fish ( 97.67%); and unharvested ( and thus not valued) commercial and recreational species ( 2.24%). ° For the Tampa Bay case study analysis, this information is provided on pages D6 3 and D6 4. ° For the San Francisco Bay case study analysis, the distribution of entrainment losses by species category is: landed recreational fish ( 4.72%); unharvested ( and thus not valued) recreational fish ( 70.14%); and special status species ( 25.14%). The distribution of impingement losses by species category is: landed recreational fish ( 8.34%); unharvested ( and thus not valued) recreational fish ( 79.53%); and special status species ( 12.13%). This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 14 of 23 ° For the Brayton Point Station case study analysis, this information is provided on pages F6 4 and F6 5. ° For the Seabrook case study analysis, this information is provided on pages G6 3 and G6 4. ° For the Pilgrim case study analysis, this information is provided on pages G6 6 and G6 7. ° For the J. R. Whiting case study analysis, this information is provided on pages H6 3 and H6 4. ° For the Monroe case study analysis, this information is provided on pages I6 3 and I6 4.

b) In the Ohio River and the Big Bend case studies, EPA provides values for " pounds of production foregone" and " pounds of fishery yield lost." Can you define these terms? Does " pounds of production foregone" refer to the weight of the total number of year 1 equivalent fish lost through I& E, or does it refer to something else? Does " pounds of fishery yield lost" refer to the fraction of the total losses to which EPA is assigning a monetary value?

EPA Answer Foregone production and foregone fishery yield are both derived measures of resources that are unavailable due to the fact that impingement or entrainment occurred. In contrast to actual I& E rates, which are direct measures, foregone production and foregone fishery yield cannot be literally measured. Instead, they are derived from actual I& E using modeling procedures that reflect biological processes such as growth and mortality.

Briefly, foregone production is the total biomass ( expressed as pounds) that fish killed by I& E would have produced in their subsequent lifetime, had they not been killed. Thus, this measures fish lost to the waterbody. The model used to calculate foregone production includes consideration of both growth and mortality during all life stages. Conceptually, the biomass that is considered is accumulated at all life stages subsequent to the time of death.

Briefly, foregone fishery yield is an estimate of fish harvest ( expressed in pounds or as numbers of individuals) that would have occurred at some time in the future, had I& E not occurred. The model used to calculate foregone fishery yield considers natural ( nonfishing mortality rates, fishing mortality rates, and the weight ( as pounds) of harvested fish.

The metric " age 1 equivalent" is also a derived measure of fish that are " absent" from the waterbody, at a future time, due to the fact that impingement or entrainment occurred. As This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 15 of 23 a general rule, most fish killed by I& E are less than 1 year old. The metric age 1 equivalent depicts the numbers of fish killed by I& E that would have survived until they reached age 1 by considering mortality rates of young fish. The metric is in terms of numbers of fish ( not pounds).

Although these three metrics share some conceptual similarities, they are not strictly dependent on each other. In particular, neither foregone production nor foregone fishery yield is derived from the estimate of age 1 equivalent losses.

Age 1 equivalents, foregone production and foregone fishery yield are all formally defined in Chapter A5 of the Case Study Document ( docket number DCN4  0003). Please refer to this chapter for a more complete discussion.

EPA's monetary valuation of losses involves consideration of foregone fishery yield, along with other factors. It would be incorrect to call it a " fraction of the total losses to which EPA is assigning a monetary value." In effect, foregone fishery yield is the major driving factor for scaling the economic losses. All of the losses that EPA has quantified flow from the estimates of foregone fishery yield, but the economic benefits include disparate kinds of economic benefits such as the dockside value of commercially harvested fish, the revealed value recreation fishing experiences, consumer surplus derived from fishing activities, and non use values.

c) On p. D4 4, tables D4 5 and D4 6, EPA lists losses in pounds, then multiplies these losses by a value per fish to obtain total valued losses. There appears to be an error in these tables, perhaps only in labelling: either the losses are actually numbers of fish ( not pounds), or the values are actually values per pound ( not per fish). If the figures in both of these columns are correct, then the figures in the final column are wrong, because they are the product of " pounds of fish" multiplied by " value per fish." Can you clarify the calculations in these tables?

EPA Answer The relevant column heading in Tables D4 5 and D4 6 should read " Commercial Value/ lb" instead of " Commercial Value/ Fish."

d) Also on p. D4 4, in a footnote to table D4 6, EPA notes that the value of black drum entrainment losses is capped at $ 137,756, a small fraction of the value that would be calculated without the cap. What is the rationale for setting a cap on this number? This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 16 of 23 Were similar caps applied to calculated values elsewhere in the analysis of this or other case studies?

EPA Answer To represent realistic losses to the commercial fishery, EPA decided to cap the losses of black drum at double the landings when the black drum fishery was healthy. This was the only case in which estimated impingement and entrainment losses appeared unreasonably high, and therefore this was not done in other case studies.

3. Values chosen as " baseline" for extrapolations:

What is the rationale for using HRC values as the basis for extrapolations for the ocean and great lake categories, while using the midpoint between the high and low cost estimates for other categories where HRC analysis was conducted? Why were HRC figures not used in all cases where they were available, if EPA considers them more indicative of true costs than the figures obtained through other methodologies?

EPA Answer See Federal Register Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Vol. 67, No. 68 / page 17205, for explanation. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 17 of 23 JUNE 27 QUESTIONS You have confirmed that the option numbering between the EBA and Fed Reg corresponds as follows:

Federal Register Proposed Option = EBA Option 3 Federal Register Option 1 = EBA Option 4 Federal Register Option 2 = EBA Option 6 Federal Register Option 3 = EBA Options 1 and 2 Federal Register Option 4 = EBA Option 3a Table D1 3 in the EBA presents total national costs and benefits for each option as follows:

EBA Optio n # EBA description Benefits Costs Net 1 Waterbody/ capacity based option, " all track 1" $ 1,034 $ 969 $ 65 2 Waterbody/ capacity based option, " track 1 and 2" $ 890 $ 610 $ 280 3 Proposed rule: " Alternative less stringent requirements based on both costs and benefits are allowed." $ 735 $ 283 $ 452 3a I& E controls everywhere $ 749 $ 300 $ 449 4 All cooling towers $ 1,223 $ 3,507 $ ( 2,284) 5 Dry cooling $ 1,536 $ 2,054 $ ( 518) 6 Waterbody based option $ 1,159 not costed This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 18 of 23 This does not match the Federal Register numbers, which at 67 FR 17154 59 give the following national costs and benefits:

FR Optio n # FR description Benefits (* b) Costs (* c) Alternate costs (* a) Net 0 Proposed option: ( 67 FR 17181,17145) $ 703 $ 178 $ 525 1 Closed cycle for all facilities. $ 1,164 $ 2,260 $ 2,320 $( 1,096)

2 Closed cycle based on waterbody type $ 1,328 not calculated not calculated 3 Closed cycle based on waterbody type and proportional flow $ 849 $ 585 $ 595 $ 264 4 Impingement mortality and entrainment controls everywhere $ 65 $ 191 $ 195 $ ( 126)

(* a) Alternate costs for FR option 1 includes compliance costs for 9 facilities that are projected to be baseline closures. Alternate cost for FR option 4 includes costs for 11 facilities projected to be baseline closures. (* b) Benefits for FR option 1: "$ 83.9 million per year [ for impingement?] and $ 1.08 billion for entrainment reductions."

Thus, comparing the two sets of numbers yields the following:

FR Option EBA Option FR Benefits EBA Benefits FR Costs EBA Costs Proposed 3 $ 703 $ 735 $ 178 $ 283 1 4 $ 1,164 $ 1,223 $ 2,260 $ 3,507 2 6 $ 1,328 $ 1,159 Not costed Not costed 3 1 and 2 $ 849 $ 1,034/$ 890 $ 585 $ 969/$ 610 4 3a $ 65 $ 749 $ 191 $ 300 1. As you can see, none of the costs or benefits match up, even when the options are properly ordered. Please explain. In addition, since Option 3 in the EBA was calculated for This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 19 of 23 " all plants follow Track I" and " Some Track I and some Track II", please explain what that now means in light of the fact that the proposed rule has Track I, II and III.

EPA Answer The benefits differ between the Preamble and the Economic and Benefits Analysis ( EBA) because the benefits in the Preamble were not sample weighted in the same manner as the costs were. The benefits in the Preamble are for the 539 in scope facilities for which EPA had questionnaire data. The benefits in the EBA are for 550 facilities that EPA believes would be regulated, based on a small number of facilities that received but did not complete a questionnaire. Appendix 1 provides more information about how EPA extrapolated benefits to account for facilities that did not complete a questionnaire.

The costs of the policy options presented in the Preamble are total private ( post tax) costs. They correspond to the costs presented in Part B of the EBA. The costs presented on page D1 4 of the EBA are total social ( pre tax) costs. Table D1 2 on page D1 3 presents a comparison between the total private ( post tax) costs and the total social ( pre tax) costs of the different policy options analyzed.

The proposed rule provides three alternatives for establishing best technology available including demonstrating that: ( 1) existing design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures meet the performance standards; ( 2) additional selected and implemented design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures will meet the performance standards; or ( 3) a site specific determination of best technology available is appropriate. In developing benefits and costs for the proposed option, EPA used available data ( collected using the questionnaires) to determine existing conditions ( i. e., plant characteristics) at the facility to estimate which alternative a facility might choose. Facilities that currently have technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures that should be able to meet applicable impingement and/ or entrainment reduction requirements of the rule ( based on facility characteristics such as waterbody type, proportion of waterbody flow, etc.) were estimated to comply under alternative number 1. These facilities were estimated to have no costs associated with complying with the performance standards. Facilities that did not currently have technologies in place to meet applicable performance standards were estimated to have to select and install additional technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures. EPA estimated the costs for additional technologies at these facilities. EPA did not attempt to estimate how many facilities would choose a site specific demonstration, as well as what monetary impact they might incur, because EPA judged that a facility would This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 20 of 23 only pursue this third alternative if it would be less costly than either alternatives 1 or 2. EPA believes that costing facilities to comply under alternatives 1 or 2 provides a conservative cost estimate.

2. Finally, since the Federal Register contains the proposed regulation and alternative approaches to be commented on, please direct us to the support for its costs and benefit totals, if not contained within the three primary support documents.

EPA Answer to:   the EBA, Chapter C3 ( docket # DCN 4 0002)   Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 68, Section IX, pages 17189 17208,   docket documents DCN 4 2070, DCN 4 2212, and DCN 4 2213, and   Appendix 1.

For details on costs please refer to:   the EBA, Chapters B1 and B2 ( docket # DCN 4 0002),   Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 68, Section VIII, pages 17181 17189,   Docket # DCN 4 2550, and   the Technical Development Document, Chapters 2, 4, and 5.

ENERGY/ ENGINEERING/ COSTS QUESTIONS FROM CONFERENCE CALL 1. Please verify the following reconciliation of the options listed in the Federal Register Notice and the options examined in the " Economic and Benefits Analysis for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule" (" EBA"): Federal Register Proposed Option = EBA Option 3 Federal Register Option 1 = EBA Option 4 Federal Register Option 2 = EBA Option 6 Federal Register Option 3 = EBA Options 1 and 2 Federal Register Option 4 = EBA Option 3a If this table is incorrect, please reconcile the options in the Federal Register Notice and the options discussed in the EBA. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 21 of 23 EPA Answer This question was fully answered verbally during a teleconference call. Therefore, as agreed, we are not providing a written answer to this question.

2.( Reference EBA page B1 1) Please explain why EPA didn't consider $/ MWH or cents/ kwh as a unit cost measure?

EPA Answer This question was fully answered verbally during a teleconference call. Therefore, as agreed, we are not providing a written answer to this question. See also hard copy attachment " Deliberative Draft Analysis of Cooling Water Flow and Electric Generating Capacity".

3.( Reference EBA page B1 4) Please explain why the EPA lists a different " retrofit" factor ( 20% vs. 30%) and contingency factor ( 10% vs. 15%)?

EPA Answer This question was fully answered verbally during a teleconference call. Therefore, as agreed, we are not providing a written answer to this question.

4. Please explain the empirical data that was used to support the assumption that there is a need to apply any " retrofit" factor to the cost of building a cooling tower at a new facility.

EPA Answer This question was fully answered verbally during a teleconference call. Therefore, as agreed, we are not providing a written answer to this question.

5.( Reference EBA page B1 5) Explain whether the analyses in the EBA assume that there would be any improved power plant performance or reduced O& M as a result of the upgrading/ refurbising of the condenser tube materials to stainless steel.

EPA Answer This question was fully answered verbally during a teleconference call. Therefore, as agreed, we are not providing a written answer to this question. 6.( Reference EBA page B1 6) Please describe in more detail the methodology used to develop the capital cost estimates for the " dry cooling" alternative.

EPA Answer This question was fully answered verbally during a teleconference call. Therefore, as agreed, we are not providing a written answer to this question. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 22 of 23 7.( Reference EBA page B1 8) Please specify the efforts or analyses that have been made to evaluate the reasonableness of the use the historic data from 1995 to 1999 to look at future costs and revenues in 2008, etc.

EPA Answer This question was fully answered verbally during a teleconference call. Therefore, as agreed, we are not providing a written answer to this question.

8. Please explain whether ICF assumed that any power uprates would be implemented at nuclear power plants. If the answer is yes, please specify what power uprates were assumed.

EPA Answer The EPA Base Case 2000 did not assume any power uprates for nuclear power plants.

9. Please explain whether ICF assumed that any nuclear power plant operating licenses would be renewed and, consequently, that nuclear power plant operating lives would be extended. If the answer is yes, please specify which plants and how long each such plant's operating life was assumed to be extended.

EPA Answer This question was fully answered verbally during a teleconference call. Therefore, as agreed, we are not providing a written answer to this question.

10.( Reference EBA page B2 1) Explain the basis for selecting the 30 year period over which costs are annualized. Please explain why it isn't possible that plants would operate for more than 30 more years.

EPA Answer This question was fully answered verbally during a teleconference call. Therefore, as agreed, we are not providing a written answer to this question.

11.( Reference EBA page B2 1) Please explain the basis for the assumed seven percent discount rate.

EPA Answer This question was fully answered verbally during a teleconference call. Therefore, as agreed, we are not providing a written answer to this question. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 23 of 23 12.( Reference EBA page B3 7) Where can we find a list of the new capacity assumed to be added to the U. S. electric system each year during the study period?

EPA Answer This information can be found in the Phase II docket, under DCN 4 3052, pages 164 to 173. The information is presented for 2008 and 2013, by NERC region and technology type. Note that: 1d = Base Case with EPA Electricity Demand Assumption 2d = Base Case with AEO Electricity Demand Assumption 3d = Option 1 with EPA Electricity Demand Assumption 4c = Option 1 with AEO Electricity Demand Assumption 5d = Option 4 with EPA Electricity Demand Assumption 13.( Reference EBA page B8 6) When ICF considered plant repowerings, did they assume that the facility was repowered to the same MW output or did they assume any increases in plant MW output as a result of the repowering?

EPA Answer The capacity of a repowered unit is twice the capacity of the original unit.

RIVERKEEPER REQUESTS FROM R. SUPER ELECTRONIC MESSAGE OF 7/ 11/ 02 1. The analysis showing that the relationship between capacity and flow had too much variation to use $/ MWH as unit cost measure ( relates to Synapse Question No. 1).

EPA Answer Please see the attached note to the 316( b) Phase II Administrative Record ( subject: Deliberative Draft Analysis of Cooling Water Flow and Electric Generating Capacity).

2. The case studies used to come up with the retrofit factor to adjust costs for a retrofit.

EPA Answer Per our June 25, 2002, teleconference discussion, here are the docket entries that refer to retrofits of cooling towers: DCN 4 2526 ( Capital Costs of Two " Retrofit" Cooling System Conversions) and DCN 4 2537 ( Unit Cost Estimates Comparison   Bowline Point Cooling Tower Retrofit). 3. The assumptions in the IPM runs for new capacity additions. Ideally, we'd like specifics This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 24 of 23 here plant names.

EPA Answer Please see response to question # 12 above ( Energy/ Engineering/ Costs Questions from Conference Call).

4. The assumptions in the IPM runs for nuclear plant uprates and license extensions. Again, by plant would be best, unless confidential.

EPA Answer Please see response to question # 8 above ( Energy/ Engineering/ Costs Questions from Conference Call).


________________________________________________________________________
______

Supporting Statement

Implementation of Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program

EPA ICR # 2375.01

PART A

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

     	   	 (a) Title of the Information Collection

Implementation of Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program, EPA ICR
number 2375.01, OMB Control Number 2060-NEW

 	 (b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

	This Information Collection Request (ICR) includes ambient air
monitoring data reporting and recordkeeping activities associated with
the 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, Quality Assurance Requirements for
SLAMS, SPMs and PSD Air Monitoring.  These data and information are
collected by State, local, and Tribal air quality management agencies
and reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The EPA Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program’s QA requirements 40
CFR part 58, appendix A require:

2.6 Gaseous and Flow Rate Audit Standards. Gaseous pollutant
concentration standards (permeation devices or cylinders of compressed
gas) used to obtain test concentrations for CO, SO2, NO, and NO2 must be
traceable to either a National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) Traceable Reference Material (NTRM), NIST Standard Reference
Materials (SRM) and Netherlands Measurement Institute (NMi) Primary
Reference Materials (valid as covered by Joint Declaration of
Equivalence) or a NIST-certified Gas Manufacturer's Internal Standard
(GMIS), certified in accordance with one of the procedures given in
reference 4 of this appendix. Vendors advertising certification with the
procedures provided in reference 4 of this appendix and distributing
gases as “EPA Protocol Gas” must participate in the EPA Protocol Gas
Verification Program or not use “EPA” in any form of advertising.

These requirements give assurance to end users that all specialty gas
producers selling EPA Protocol Gases are participants in a program that
provides an independent assessment of the accuracy of their gases'
certified concentrations. In 2010 EPA will develop an Ambient Air
Protocol Gas Verification Program (AA-PGVP) that will provide end users
with information about participating producers and verification results.

This program is considered a verification program because its current
implementation level does not allow for a large enough sample of EPA
Protocol Gases from any one specialty gas producer to be measured to
yield a statistically rigorous assessment of the accuracy.  It will not
provide end users with a scientifically defensible estimate of whether
gases of acceptable quality can be purchased from a specific producer.
Rather, the results provide information to end users that may inform
their purchasing decisions.  The final verification results will be
reported with an explanation on how the results should be interpreted.

Each year, EPA will attempt to compare gas cylinders from every
specialty gas producer being used by ambient air monitoring
organizations.  EPA Regions 7 and 2 have agreed to provide analytical
services to provide verifications of 40 cylinders/lab or 80 cylinders
total/year. Cylinders will be verified at a pre-determined time each
quarter.

 The selection goal in the following order would be:

Minimum one gas standard from every specialty gas vendor being used by
the monitoring community

Selection of a minimum of 3 standards per specialty gas vendor

Weight additional standards by vendor market share in ambient air
monitoring community.

In order to make the appropriate selection, EPA needs to know what
specialty gas producers are being used by the monitoring organizations.
Therefore EPA needs to collect information from each primary quality
assurance organization every year on specialty gas producers being used
and whether the monitoring organization would like to participate in the
verification for the upcoming calendar year.

	The burden estimates are for the 3-year period of 2011 through 2013.
This ICR burden estimates are associated with the current monitoring
portion of ICR #0940.22 (2060-0084).

	This 3-year information collection is estimated to involve
approximately 211 respondents for a total cost of approximately $13,750
(labor) which equates to 211 hours. The estimate is only labor hours
since EPA is asking the State, local, and Tribal air quality management
agencies to complete an annual form that should take approximately 20
minutes to complete. In addition to the costs at the State, local, and
Tribal air quality management agencies, there is a burden to EPA a total
of 120 hours which equates to approximately $17,309.

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

	(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

The information requirements included within this ICR are necessary to
provide the EPA with ambient air quality surveillance data in order to
meet the code of federal regulation requirements to implement an Ambient
Air Protocol Gas Verification Program. This program is integral to
ensure the quality of the data that is used to determine the United
States' air quality status, to make attainment decisions with respect to
the NAAQS, to assist in developing necessary control strategies to
ensure attainment of the NAAQS, to assess national trends in air
pollution, to inform the public of air quality, and to determine the
population's exposure to various ambient air pollutants.  The EPA's goal
of attaining the NAAQS in all areas of the United States is directly
dependent upon the availability of quality ambient air data and the use
of protocol gas calibration standards helps ensure this quality.

The principal legal authority for this information collection is the
Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 7403, 7410, and 7511a, from which the 40
CFR part 58, appendix A QA regulations were promulgated.

Under § 7403 (c), the Administrator is required to conduct a program of
research, testing, and development of methods for sampling, measurement,
monitoring, analysis, and modeling of air pollutants, specifically
including a requirement to establish a national network to monitor,
collect, and compile data with quantification of certainty in the status
and trends of air emissions and air quality.  The Ambient Air Protocol
Gas Verification Program reduce the uncertainty of data collected under
§ 7403 (c),

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) uses the
data included within this collection to determine what specialty gas
producers are selling calibration standards to monitoring organizations
implementing ambient air monitoring under 40 CFR part 58 that are
subject to use of protocol gasses.  In addition, the information is used
to determine the monitoring organizations willing to participate in the
program by submitting the purchased gasses to EPA for verification
testing.

Results for the verification data can provide monitoring organizations
with information on specialty gas producers that are participating in
the Protocol Gas Verification Program and the results might also help
monitoring organizations with their protocol gas purchasing decisions.

3.  NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a)  Non-duplication

This collection is not unnecessarily duplicative of information
otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency.  There is currently no
nationwide database that would allow EPA to gather information of this
detail.

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

The 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act requires that any agency developing a
non-rule related ICR must solicit public comments for a 60-day period
prior to submitting the ICR to OMB.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  EPA
published a Federal Register notice soliciting public comment on March
2, 2010 (75 FR 9407).  No comments were received.

3(c)  Consultations

	Through the course of planning, monitoring, and improving upon this
collection and its associated regulation, the EPA regularly consults
with affected State, local, and Tribal air quality management agencies
through various methods including the regulatory process, regular
meetings, and training courses.  The EPA has developed an advisory group
for this program made up of OAQPS, EPA Regions and representatives from
the State, local, and Tribal air quality management agencies to assist
in the development of this information collection. This Advisory Group
meets quarterly to discuss pertinent issues associated with the AA-PGVP.
The EPA Regional Offices conduct annual ambient air monitoring meetings
with their affected State, local, and Tribal air quality management
agencies to assist these affected agencies with this collection and its
associated regulation.  The EPA’s OAQPS also meets regularly with
leading State and local air monitoring managers to discuss the
Nation’s ambient air monitoring program and this collection, via large
monthly phone calls and smaller in person meeting two or three times per
year.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	State, local, and Tribal air quality management agencies would collect
and report ambient air quality data without the 40 CFR 58 regulation
associated with this collection.  Sanctions do not automatically accrue
to State or local air quality management agencies that fail to meet
these requirements.  The 40 CFR part 58 regulations and this associated
collection do provide for a consistent system for reporting and record
keeping that would not exist without these requirements.  The effects of
less frequent collection include:

• 	A national database that is not consistently updated and available
for public consumption;

• 	EPA would not be able to ensure new specialty gas vendors were
participating in the program and were selling gasses of acceptable
quality.

3(e)  General Guidelines

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 All of the OMB's general guidelines for
information collections in 5 CFR 1320.6 are met by this ICR.  None of
the guidelines are exceeded.

• 	Data reporting on a annual basis is the requirement.

•	Record retention is for no more than 3 years (most records are kept
by the EPA data repository, not the affected State, local, and Tribal
air quality management agencies)

•	Information is maintained and reported in the standardized
electronic format.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Information that is considered personal, private, proprietary, or
confidential is not required for this collection.

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 This section is not applicable to this ICR
because no information involving matters of a sensitive nature is
collected.

4.  THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

This ICR affects State, local, and Tribal governments (SIC code 951,
Administration of Environmental Quality Program) that are currently
operating and maintaining established ambient air quality networks.  The
40 CFR part 58 regulations associated with this request require that
State, local, and Tribal air quality management agencies conducting the
ambient air quality surveillance under this regulation to use protocol
gases from specialty gas producers participating in the AA-PGVP.

4(b)  Information Requested

(i)  Data items, including record keeping requirements

	These data items are submitted electronically to EPA and are stored
electronically within the EPA's AA-PGVP data base.

•	Primary quality assurance organization (PQAO) name and code and
Reporting Agency name and code.  Both the name and codes can be found in
the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) Database.

•	Monitoring organization protocol gas point of contact and email
address

•	Specialty gas producer(s) used, their address and the gas
concentrations normally purchased

•	Information on when monitoring organizations might purchase protocol
gas in the upcoming calendar year, whether they would like to
participate in the verification activity and whether they have had DOT
hazardous materials shipping training.

(ii)  Respondent Activities

A model respondent would engage in the following activities to comply
with this information request:

•	Read the one page instructions on how to fill out the form.

•	Complete the one page Microsoft Excel form each year within the
specified time period and submit it to OAQPS AA-PGVP Lead.

The influence of the 40 CFR part 58 regulations has been to provide a
nationally consistent mechanism for collecting ambient air quality data
including uniform quality assurance procedures such as the use of
protocol gasses.

5.  THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a)  Agency Activities

The EPA conducts the following activities to implement this ICR and
associated regulation:

•	Periodically review the 40 CFR part 58 regulations to update the
information collection and monitoring requirements in light of new
technological developments or new air pollutant standards.  Develop
revisions to the regulations in response to legislative action and
program changes.

•	Establish, maintain, and support the AA-PGVP data base as the
national repositories for all State, local, and Tribal air quality
management agency ambient air protocol gas information.  Periodically
evaluate and improve upon this system as new technologies, and new
regulatory requirements would dictate.

•	Answer respondent (generally State, local, and Tribal air quality
management agencies, but also industrial organizations, environmental
groups, and others) questions about ambient air monitoring, the 40 CFR
part 58 protocol gas regulatory requirements.

•	Support the AA-PGVP by ensuring that the EPA Region 2 and 7
laboratories are able to conduct verifications of specialty gas
standards each year.

•	Provide annual assessment reports of the protocol gas verifications
for posting on the AMTIC website or public dissemination.

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

The EPA has provided and will continue to provide resources for the
maintenance and operation of the protocol gas database.  All data
required by this collection are submitted electronically to reduce the
burden of the collection and to improve data quality, agency efficiency,
and responsiveness to the public.  In submitting the information to EPA,
we ensure that the data are publicly available, electronically stored,
and electronically retrievable.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility  --

	This collection contains a minimum amount of information in order to
implement the AA-PGVP.  The AA-PGVP form is not anticipated to take more
than 10 minutes for any entity, regardless of size, to complete.  The
smallest entities affected by this collection are local air quality
management agencies, typically consisting of the governing agencies for
a county or group of counties, or a smaller metropolitan area (e.g.,
cities with a population of 100,000).  This collection reduces to the
extent practicable and appropriate the burden on entities that provide
ambient air quality data and information to or for the EPA, including
with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601(6))

5(d)  Collection Schedule-

The information will be reported annually from September through
November and the results will reflect the following calendar year.

Ambient air quality data and information are made available to the
public at any time in various ways, including:

•	Upon request to the appropriate EPA Regional office, or to the
OAQPS;

•	By Freedom of Information Act Request to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office or the OAQPS;

•	From the State or local air quality management agency responsible
for collecting the ambient air quality data and information;

•	By obtaining access, through appropriate EPA channels.

•	Through EPA public reports, such as the annual National Air Quality
and Emissions Trends Report, or

•	through report specifically generated for this program.

	Due to the nature of the program, information related to what specialty
gas cylinders were use from individual monitoring organizations will not
be published until the cylinder has been analyzed and data validated.
In this manner specialty gas vendors will not be aware ahead of time
that a specific cylinder is being used for the verification.

6.  ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

All activities listed with section 4 (b) (ii) of this ICR Supporting
Statement are presented in Worksheet 1.  The detailed burden and cost
estimates for the different types of monitors are based on information
provided in the updated version of Guidance for Estimating Ambient Air
Monitoring Costs for Criteria Pollutants and Selected Air Toxic
Pollutants (prepared by Desert Research Institute for the EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division,
Ambient Air Monitoring Group, January 2005).  The cost estimates
presented in this guidance document are based on existing literature and
direct monitoring experience.  The costs for equipment and supplies were
verified with vendors.  The monitoring costs are based on vendor quotes
for the monitor type that EPA expects respondents to use to comply with
the requirements.  Costs for level of effort estimates are verified with
selected State and local agencies.  All cost values presented in the
guidance document are adjusted to 2004 dollars, based on the average of
the first two quarters.

	For use in preparing the burden estimates for this ICR, costs for the
monitoring requirements were inflated to 2011, 2012, and 2013.  The cost
escalation factors were estimated based on the appropriate Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) price indices as reported in the report available
at   HYPERLINK "http://www.jsc."  http://www.jsc.
nasa.gov/bu2/inflateGDP.html .  Tables showing the detailed burden
estimate calculations are presented below.  A summary of the average
annual respondent burden costs follows.

Worksheet 1:  Annual Average Respondent Burden Estimates

Collection

Activities	Total Labor Minutes

Per Respondent Per Year

(211 respondents)

1.  Read instructions	5

2.  Complete Form	15

TOTAL	20 minutes

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

All activities listed with section 4 (b) (ii) of this ICR Supporting
Statement are included in the Worksheet 2. A summary of the average
annual respondent burden costs follows.

Worksheet 2:  Annual Average Respondent Cost Estimates

Collection

Activities	Total Labor Cost

Per Respondent Per Year

(211 respondents)

1.  Read instructions	$5.43

2.  Complete Form	$16.28

TOTAL	$21.71

Costs in Worksheet 2 were averaged over the 3-year period (2011-2013)

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

We estimated the Agency burden and cost by using current burden and cost
of the ambient air monitoring program related to this collection.  We
included burden and cost for the OAQPS, and the ten Regional Offices.
The in-house activities for this collection are completed by a variety
of individuals with a variety of salaries; therefore, we used EPA
payroll averages (one estimate for EPA Regions and one estimate for
OAQPS) as an average for computing the program costs.  We estimated a
total of 40 hours ($5,770) total agency annual burden.

6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Worksheet 3 shows the total respondent hourly burdens and costs which
was taken from section 6(b) above for the estimated 211 respondents.
The total labor burden for the respondents was estimated to be 70.3
hours ($4,582).

Worksheet 3:  Annual Total Respondent Labor Burden/Cost Estimates

Collection

 Activities	Total Labor Hours

Per Year	Total Labor Cost

Per Year

1.  Read Instructions	17.6	$1145

2.  Complete Form	52.7	$3437

TOTAL	70.3	$4582

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

 (i)  Respondent Tally

Respondent Total Annual Burden = 70 hours

Respondent Total Annual Labor Cost = $4582

(ii) The Agency Tally

Agency Total Annual Burden = 40 hours

Agency Total Annual Cost = $5770

(iii) Variations in The Annual Bottom Line.

We do not expect any significant variations in the annual bottom line
for the ambient air monitoring networks for the clearance period
requested.

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

EPA is proposing to require monitoring organization to submit
information to EPA on a annual basis on the specialty gas vendors they
use in order to ensure specialty gas producer participation in the
Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 20 minutes per response.  Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part
9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To allow 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 established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0050 which has been available for public viewing at
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center Docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 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
Docket 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, access the index listing of the contents of the
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,”
then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503,
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0050 and OMB Control Number 2060-NEW in any
correspondence.

PART B OF SUPPORTING STATEMENT

This section is not applicable to this ICR because statistical methods
are not used in the data collection.

 PAGE   15

 PAGE   5


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11404-11407]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05021]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0626; Product Identifier 2016-NM-210-AD; Amendment
39-19226; AD 2018-06-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. This AD
was prompted by reports of in-flight uncommanded rudder movements on
airplanes with an installation similar to the installation on certain
Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. This AD requires
modification of the wiring harness for the yaw damper control system.
We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 19, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 19,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North
America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-
514-855-2999; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected];
internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2017-0626.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0626; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.,
Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on June 27, 2017 (82 FR 29014) (``the NPRM''). The
NPRM was prompted by reports of in-flight uncommanded rudder movements
on airplanes with an installation similar to the installation on
certain Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. The NPRM proposed
to require modification of the wiring for the yaw damper control
system. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight uncommanded rudder
movements, which could lead to structural failure and subsequent loss
of the airplane.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2016-38, effective December 12, 2016 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-
2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The [Canadian] AD CF-2013-22 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-
16-06, Amendment 39-17930 (79 FR 48972, August 19, 2014)] was issued
on 12 August 2013 to mandate the introduction of an emergency
procedure to the Aeroplane Flight Manual to address the uncommanded
rudder movement.
    Since the original issue of [Canadian] AD CF-2013-22, Bombardier
Aerospace has developed a wiring modification for the yaw damper
control system to prevent uncommanded movement of the rudder.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of Service
Bulletins (SB) 604-22-007 and 605-22-002 * * * *.

    This AD requires modification of the wiring for the yaw damper
control system. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2017-0626.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to that comment.

Request To Clarify Airplane Model That Experienced In-Flight
Uncommanded Rudder Movement

    Bombardier, Inc., requested that the Reason section (paragraph (e)
of the proposed AD) be revised to clarify that the in-flight
uncommanded rudder movements occurred on airplanes with an installation
similar to the installation on certain Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes and
did not occur on Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes. Bombardier, Inc., stated
that it is not aware of any in-flight uncommanded rudder movements that
were experienced by operators of Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes, but as
written, the Reason section of the NPRM implied that these events
occurred on Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes.
    For the reason provided by the commenter, we agree to revise the
SUMMARY and Discussion sections of this final rule and paragraph (e) of
this AD to clarify that the in-flight uncommanded rudder movements
occurred on airplanes with an installation similar to the installation
on certain Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes. We have issued AD 2013-14-11,
Amendment 39-17516 (78 FR 44871, July 25, 2013) to address the same
unsafe condition for Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440)
airplanes, Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702)
airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and
Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc., issued Service Bulletin 604-22-007, Revision 01,
dated July 25, 2016; and Service Bulletin 605-22-002, Revision 01,
dated July 25, 2016. This service information describes procedures for
modifying the wiring harness for the yaw damper control system. These
documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane
configurations. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business

or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 120 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                   Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification....................  50 work-hours x     Up to $478........  Up to $4,728......  Up to $567,360.
                                   $85 per hour =
                                   $4,250.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2018-06-06 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-19226; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0626; Product Identifier 2016-NM-210-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 19, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604
Variant) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/
Ns) 5301 through 5665 inclusive, 5701 through 5911 inclusive, 5913,
and 5914.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Autopilot
System.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight uncommanded rudder
movements on airplanes with an installation similar to the
installation on certain Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant)
airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight uncommanded
rudder movements, which could lead to structural failure and
subsequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the
wiring harness for the yaw damper control system, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 5301 through 5665
inclusive: Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-22-007, Revision 01,
dated July 25, 2016.
    (2) For airplanes having S/Ns 5701 through 5911 inclusive, 5913,
and 5914: Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-22-002, Revision 01, dated
July 25, 2016.

(h) Part Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on
any airplane a yaw damper actuator having part number 622-9968-002,
unless the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD has
been accomplished.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the modification required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if the modification was performed before
the effective date of this AD using the applicable service
information identified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-22-007, dated June 23, 2015.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-22-002, dated June 23, 2015.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as

appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-794-
5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-38, effective December 12, 2016, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2017-0626.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Cesar Gomez,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier, Inc., Service Bulletin 604-22-007, Revision 01,
dated July 25, 2016.
    (ii) Bombardier, Inc., Service Bulletin 605-22-002, Revision 01,
dated July 25, 2016.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center
North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial
telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 6, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-05021 Filed 3-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P