Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 CHAPTER 1 HDIUT Economic Assessment This chapter contains our economic analysis of the costs associated with implementing a manufacturer run, in use NTE testing program for heavy duty diesel engines and vehicles. The cost of the program is dependent on several key variables. One of these is the number of vehicles tested under the Phase 1 and 2 testing schemes. This, of course, depends on how many vehicles pass, or fail, the vehicle pass criteria at various points under the tiered testing procedures. Also important is just how each manufacturer will chose to design and conduct the test program, how many portable emission measurement systems ( PEMS) will be purchased, and the availability of test vehicles. Obviously, it is difficult to project these variables for an all new program. However, based on our experience with in use emissions testing, including the development and use of a portable emission measurement device for compliance testing, we have identified a set of reasonable testing scenarios that allow us to estimate the potential costs associated with the program.

As part of the comments on the proposed rule, one manufacturer provided comment on a number of the values and assumptions used in the analysis We have considered each of these and revised the analysis where appropriate. In most cases these changes increased costs, leading to what EPA believes to be a more conservative assumption. The most notable change is our decision to eliminate scenario 1, and to assume all engine family testing events involve longer trips and overnight travel as laid out in our original Scenario 2.

This chapter is divided into several parts. Section 1.1 contains a brief outline of the methodology used to estimate the associated costs is presented. Section 1.2 develops the fixed and variable cost components associated with the program. Section 1.3 summarizes the component costs into estimates of the overall cost of the program. All costs are estimated in Dec 2004 dollars. In most cases our estimates in 2003 were increased by 2.7 percent based on the CPI inflator.

1.1 Overview All costs are divided into either fixed or variable cost components. Fixed costs are associated with the direct expense of purchasing the requisite portable emission measurement system ( PEMS) units. Variable costs depend primarily on the number of families and vehicles tested. They include the direct costs for vehicle recruiting, labor for on site testing, instrument calibration and maintenance, travel, data analysis, and reporting expenses. Variable costs also include indirect costs associated with overhead and general and administrative ( G& A) expenses.

To explore the range of possible costs, we assessed a range of costs associated with different testing intensities under Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the program ( i. e., the amount or number of vehicle tests that might occur under the two phases of testing). Finally, we combined this information to show a range of possible costs and a single point estimate by assuming a specific mix of the above Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 testing variables. The results are presented for all heavy duty engine manufacturers as annualized costs, total costs for the first five years of the program, and costs over 30 years. Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 1 Chapter 2 contains additional information on the status and development of portable emission measurement systems. 1.2 Cost Components 1.2.1 Fixed Costs Fixed costs for this program are primarily associated with buying PEMS units. Some of the fixed cost components have significant uncertainties associated with them. Portable measurement devices are already commercially available that can measure all the gaseous pollutants required by the program. These systems cost approximately $ 70,000 per unit. The commenter mentioned above indicated that costs were 30 percent greater. Based on our experience and investment in developing portable particulate matter ( PM) measurement technology, we estimate that systems capable of measuring both gaseous and PM emissions will cost an additional $ 30,000 per unit. 1 The commenter mentioned above indicated interactions with vendors indicating costs 3 4 times greater. EPA has elected to very conservatively estimate costs ranging from $ 100,000$ 180,000. Taking the average, we estimate the capital cost for portable measurement devices that measure both gaseous and PM emissions is approximately $ 140,000 per unit.

As described in Chapter 2 of this document, we assume that engine manufacturers will initially purchase PEMS units with the capability to measure gaseous pollutants in time to coincide with the initiation of the pilot program during the 2005 calendar year. Add on, modular devices that measure PM emissions will be purchased later in 2006 as this technology becomes available. Regardless of the purchasing strategy, we assume all equipment purchases occur at the beginning of 2005 in order to simplify the analysis.

We estimate that portable emission measurement devices have a product life cycle of five years for the purposes of the program. After that time they are assumed to be replaced with brand new equipment. Also, we assume there is no salvage value for units that may remain in service for other less rigorous or less important duties after five years, although this could occur in some instances. Alternatively, some manufacturers may chose to replace or rebuild component parts of a PEMS unit rather than replace the entire unit after five years. To the extent this may occur, we assume such a maintenance strategy will cost approximately the same as the replacement strategy. The annualized cost of a single PEMS unit can now be calculated by using the above values and assuming a typical capital recovery rate of seven percent per annum. The result is an annualized cost of $ 34,145 per unit.

The total annualized fixed cost for the program depends on how many PEMS units each manufacturer will purchase, the fraction of time the equipment is used for the in use testing program, and the number of manufacturers subject to the requirements. Each of these cost components is addressed separately below.

We assume that each manufacturer will purchase three units. We chose this number to Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 illustrate the average equipment cost of the program recognizing that two units is adequate to perform more than the needed amount of tests for even the largest manufacturer if its program is designed so that testing can be conducted in an orderly, efficient manner. We recognize that manufacturers with a limited number of engine families may need only one unit with a backup unit. Manufacturers with a large number of families may prefer an additional unit for backup.

Our final assumption in estimating the total annual fixed cost of the program is that 13 engine manufacturers will participate in the program. This is the number of companies that certified heavy duty diesel engines in the 2005 model year. The manufacturers are shown below.

Caterpillar, Inc. Cummins Engine Company, Inc. DaimlerChrysler AG John Deere, Inc Detroit Diesel Corporation General Engine Products General Motos Corporation Hino Motors, Ltd. International Truck and Engine Corporation Isuzu Motors Limited Mack Mitsubishi Motors Corporation Volvo Powertrain Corporation.

Using the above information, the total annualized fixed cost of the program $ 1,331,665, as shown in Table 1 1.

1.2.2 Variable Costs Variable costs are grouped into two broad categories: cost per vehicle test and cost per family. This approach allows us to more easily account for tests that must be repeated on the same vehicle in order to obtain a valid test result. Repeat testing can occur in the laboratory due to equipment or vehicle malfunctions, and operator error. We expect that similar problems may occur in field testing, and assume that these issues can generally be remedied at the testing location. Further, a vehicle may be tested a second day under the terms of the program if less than three hours of non idle operation are recorded during the first " shift day" of testing. Obviously, multiple tests on the same vehicle do not directly affect other costs associated with testing an engine family, e. g., vehicle recruiting. Therefore, these costs are estimated separately in our analysis.

Also, as noted earlier, many of the costs of the program vary by the relative availability of test vehicles ( i. e., how difficult it is to access, instrument, and test vehicles at a job site), and the type Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 and amount of travel required to conduct the test campaign ( e. g., overnight versus local travel). In order to reasonably bracket these cost elements, we constructed two testing scenarios that differ in the above characteristics. These scenarios are based on our direct experience in conducting in use testing of heavy duty trucks with portable emission measurement systems under the 1998 consent decrees, our continued development of portable measurement systems, and a recently awarded EPA contract to conduct a large scale, in use testing pilot program in Kansas City, Missouri for passenger cars ( USEPA 2003). The two testing scenarios are described in the following section by first identifying some of the key elements shared by both scenarios and then presenting the specifics of each scenario separately.

<IP_ADDRESS> General Description of Testing Scenarios Our testing scenarios share a number of key assumptions which we believe provide a reasonable representation of how manufacturers are likely to design and conduct testing under this program. Alternatively, if an engine manufacturer decides to contract for testing services, we expect the service provider to similarly design and conduct the testing campaign. One of our most basic methodological assumptions is that field testing will usually consist of a multi day campaign where a minimum of five vehicles are tested. This number was chosen for several reasons. First, it captures the type of back   to back vehicle testing likely to be employed in order to facilitate efficient testing. Second, it represents the minimum number of test vehicles for Phase 1 testing under the program. Third, and finally, it simplifies the analysis when evaluating the potential costs of higher testing intensities associated with the maximum number of vehicles that may be tested under Phase 1 ( 10 total vehicles) and Phase 2 ( 20 total vehicles). These later testing levels are simple multiples the Phase 1 minimum testing scenario, i. e., two times or four times, respectively. Other key assumptions are described below.

S Vehicle recruiting and pre screening of prospective test vehicles will be done by telephone or other means prior to the test site visit.

S All portable measurement systems will be inspected and pre calibrated at the manufacturer's facility prior to deployment in the field.

S Field testing will be conducted by two people. One is an engineer and the other a qualified technician. Both are capable of installing and operating the portable measurement systems, screening vehicles for OBD trouble codes and MIL indications, performing maintenance on the portable systems, etc. The technician is also capable of performing all required inspections of the vehicle's mechanical, electrical, and emission control systems; as well as performing allowable maintenance and the setting of adjustable engine parameters as required.

S The test engineer and technician will coordinate their activities to optimize their productivity. For example, the engineer may acquire and enter a vehicle's history and vital statistics into an electronic database concurrently while the technician performs vehicle inspection and allowable maintenance.

S Test vehicles for an engine family are obtained from two independent sources, as required by the regulation. It is assumed that the sources are located relatively close Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 to each other to minimize travel distances between test sites.

S The test sites are not necessarily in relatively close proximity to a manufacturer's technical center, test center, maintenance facility, or other similar location thus increasing personnel travel and field logistics costs.

S In many cases test vehicles will depart and not return to the same location the same day, necessitating an overnight stay.

S Field personnel have access to the test vehicles and a service location before and after the shift day as needed to install and remove the portable measurement devices. Special arrangements with the vehicle owner/ operator may be necessary.

S Two portable emission measurement systems will be deployed simultaneously during a test site visit when possible, i. e., two vehicles will be tested at the same time.

S All necessary tools, spare parts, testing supplies, office supplies, etc. will be taken to or otherwise supplied at the site of testing to avoid unnecessary delays.

It is also possible that test vehicles may be operated on multi day driving routes, i. e., longhaul operation. We do not think this will be a standard practice for all vehicles/ engines, but may happen for engines used in over the road trucks and buses. As alluded to above, we have incorporated this assumption into the analysis for all families.

There are also some common on site work activities. These categories are described below in their approximate order of occurrence.

S Vehicle History/ Documentation. Obtaining all relevant information not available prior to the field visit or verifying the accuracy of information previously obtained.

S Vehicle Set to Specification. Inspecting the vehicle, performing allowable maintenance, and setting all adjustable engine control parameters.

S PEMS Installation. Install the portable measurement system onboard the test vehicle. Warm the instrument to operating temperature, verify proper operation, perform final calibrations and span instruments, etc.

S PEMS Data Acquisition. Download the measurement data set; perform on site data verification and initial quality assurance; and record and store all other relevant test information.

S PEMS Removal. Verify proper operation, perform post test calibration, and remove system from the test vehicle.

S Miscellaneous Time. Non routine labor for repairing or replacing parts of the portable emission measurement systems or test vehicles, obtaining supplies not at the test site, etc.

Now that the overall components of the testing scenarios have been identified, the specific scenario we have analyzed will be presented. We believe this is conservative since it assumes all families are used in overnight operation. Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 Limited Vehicle Access and Overnight Travel Under this scenario, test vehicles are not readily available and the testing technician and engineer must sometimes work around a test vehicle's normal daily work shift. This means that the work day for the testing personnel includes the time the vehicle is being driven over its normal work route. In these instances, we made a worst case assumption that the testing personnel remain " idle" on the job site or that they are on the vehicle, with this time charged to the in use testing program. Also, the test sites are located far enough away from the manufacturer's facility, or employees home base, that a single round trip to and from the job site and overnight travel is required. However, the sites are still close enough to one another that travel between the two locations is not restrictive or prohibitive.

<IP_ADDRESS> Variable Cost Per Test As described above, the cost to perform an individual vehicle test is based on a Phase 1 testing scheme where a minimum of five vehicles must be tested. Test costs consist of direct labor, labor overhead, other direct costs, and general and administrative overhead. Each of these cost components is described below.

<IP_ADDRESS>.1 Direct Labor The cost of direct labor for each scenario is estimated by applying an hourly compensation rate by labor category to the various activities associated with the field testing campaign. Table 1 2 display the work flow for the scenario, broken down by activity, labor type, and number of hours spent preforming each activity. These depictions reflect the assumptions, work activities, and optimization of the work flow as described in Section <IP_ADDRESS>. The time spent in the various work tasks are estimated based on EPA's direct experience in conducting in use testing with portable emission measurement devices and on the recently awarded Kansas City, Missouri test program.

The test campaign is completed in five days. The lack of vehicle flexibility leads to long work days in this scenario. The total direct labor is 55 and 56 hours for the engineer and technician, respectively.

We developed an hourly estimate of employee compensation from information published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Compensation and Working Conditions, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation ( BLS 2003). When increased by the CPI, Table 1 3 shows our estimate of $ 32 and $ 29 per hour for an engineer and technician, respectively. These hourly compensation rates are " total compensation," and include wages and salaries, paid leave, supplemental pay, and insurance. By comparison, these labor rates compare well with the contract labor costs we incur in conducting our in use testing under the consent decrees. Finally, we assume that labor exceeding 40 hours per week is paid as overtime, i. e., 1.5 times the normal hourly rate. Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 For convenience, Table 1 3 also shows an hourly compensation rate for a manager using the same literature source as described above. This labor category will be used in Section <IP_ADDRESS>, where variable costs are discussed.

The resulting direct labor cost per test can now be calculated based on the above labor hours and hourly compensation rates. As shown in Table 1 4, the resulting per test cost is $ 773. Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 <IP_ADDRESS>.2 Labor Overhead We assume that all direct labor is burdened at 100 percent of the total compensation rate. For simplicity, overtime pay is also burdened at this same overhead rate.

<IP_ADDRESS>.3 Other Direct Costs A number of other costs not related to labor that are " consumed" during in use testing include office supplies, DVDs, calibration gases, and fuel for the flame ionization detector ( FID). Based on our experience with using portable measurement systems, we estimate that calibration gases will cost about $ 75 per test and all other supplies will cost about $ 25 per test. Therefore, we estimate that a total of $ 100 per test for other direct costs.

<IP_ADDRESS>.4 Repeat Tests Some in use tests will be voided due to operator error and test equipment malfunctions. Other tests will be repeated if less than three hours of non idle vehicle operation are recorded during the first day of testing. At our National Vehicle Fuel and Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, we experienced a test void rate for laboratory based, non research testing of approximately four percent over the last two years. We expect a somewhat higher void rate for field testing. Also, as noted, some tests will be repeated do to the three hour non idle requirement. Overall, we assume a combined repeat test rate of 10 percent for this analysis.

<IP_ADDRESS>.5 General and Administrative Overhead Certain costs are incurred for common or joint objectives and therefore cannot be identified specifically with a particular project or activity. We assume these general and administrative costs to be 6.5 percent of all other costs.

<IP_ADDRESS>.6 Summary of Variable Cost per Test Table 1 5 summarizes the various direct cost elements described above. As shown, the resulting total variable costs per test are $ 1,928.

<IP_ADDRESS> Variable Cost Per Engine Family As with the previous section, the cost per engine family is based on a Phase 1 testing scheme where a minimum of five vehicles must be tested. This overall cost is composed of a number of individual expenses such as paying the test vehicle's owner/ operator an incentive, recruitment, travel, instrument pre calibration, data analysis, and reporting. Each of the cost elements are described below. Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 <IP_ADDRESS>.1 Vehicle Incentives We generally offer a vehicle's owner an incentive in the form of a government bond and free vehicle repairs as part of our in use test programs. Sometimes the owner cooperates without such an incentive, as most often occurs in our in use testing under the consent decrees. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that a cash incentive of $ 150 per vehicle will be paid to the owner by the engine manufacturer. This is the average cost of the incentive, with some owners being offered more some less, and some cooperating without an incentive. Therefore, the total incentive for an engine family tested under the Phase 1 minimum requirements is $ 750.

<IP_ADDRESS>.2 Direct Labor Each engine family will incur costs in three main labor categories: vehicle recruitment, instrument pre calibration, and data analysis and reporting. We expect that manufacturers will rely heavily on their existing customer relationships to recruit appropriate test vehicles from fleets or individual owners. Alternatively, they will create new lines of communication with their customers. A significant amount of pre screening and vehicle history will also be associated with vehicle recruitment. We assume that with a heavy emphasis on existing customer relationships and data bases, recruiting the requisite five test vehicles will average about $ 300 per engine family.

Prior to being deployed in the field, each portable measurement system will be carefully examined at the manufacturer's facility to ensure proper operation. Based on our experience with portable emission measurement systems, we estimate that pre calibrating each unit will require 0.5 and 1.5 hours of engineer and technician time, respectively. Using the total compensation rates previously described in Table1 4, this would cost $ 60 per unit. Since it is assumed that testing will be conducted using two portable systems, the total direct labor cost for pre calibrating the instruments is $ 120 per engine family.

The last category of direct labor per engine family is primarily for final data analysis and quality assurance ( beyond that which is conducted in the field), reporting results, and archiving information. We assume that engine manufacturers will develop a number of automated methods to perform many of these functions to minimize labor requirements. Our direct labor estimates are basically taken from another EPA report that was prepared to support a new pilot program aimed at developing new in use data collection methods for nonroad diesel powered equipment ( USEPA 2004). That program will also collect, analyze, and report emissions data using portable emission measurement systems. For the purposes of this analysis, we doubled the time per test for managerial oversight, since the original estimate was developed to reflect an emission factor style program, while the in use program potential compliance implications.

Table 1 6 presents the estimated labor hours for each data analysis and reporting activity, the cost per test, and the cost per engine family. The cost per test is based on a labor rate of $ 32 per hour for an engineer and $ 48 per hour for a manager. These labor classifications and Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 compensation rates were previously discussed in Section <IP_ADDRESS> and presented in Table 1 3. The total cost of post data analysis and reporting is estimated to be $ 751 per engine family.

The resulting total direct labor for the three categories described above is $ 1,171 per engine family.

<IP_ADDRESS>.3 Travel As discussed above, we assume the test sites are located far enough away from the manufacturer's facility, or employees home base, that a single round trip to and from the job site and overnight travel is required. More specifically, we assume that commuting at the beginning and end of the work week is four hours one way for a total of eight hours. Again, using the total compensation rates previously presented in Table 1 4 of $ 32 and $ 29 per hour for an engineer and technician, respectively, the travel related direct labor cost with 100% overhead is $ 976 per engine family.

The vehicle expenses consist of the round trip travel to the testing locations described above, and daily travel to and from the test sites as well as itinerant travel, e. g., lunch and dinner. The round trip travel expense associated with the eight hours of commuting time is estimated by using an assumed average speed of 50 miles per hour and a mileage fee of $ 0.40 per mile. The result is $ 160. The itinerant travel distances are assumed to be 30 miles for Day 1 and 45 miles each day for the next three days, or a total of 165 miles. Using the assumed vehicle reimbursement fee, this amounts to $ 226.

This scenario requires overnight travel. There will be approximately four days of full per diem expenses and a partial day of meals on the fifth day ( Table 1 3). We assume it costs $ 100 per night for lodging and $ 40 per day for meals. This results in per diem expenses of $ 1200 for the full week. Combining this with the travel related labor of $ 976 nd the vehicle cost of $ 226 from above, the total travel cost is $ 2,402 per engine family.

<IP_ADDRESS>.4 Labor Overhead We assume that all direct labor is burdened at 100 percent of the total compensation rate.

<IP_ADDRESS>.5 General and Administrative Overhead We assume general and administrative expenses to be 6.5 percent of all other costs.

<IP_ADDRESS>.6 Summary of Variable Cost per Engine Family Table 1 7 summarizes the various cost elements discussed above. As shown, the resulting total variable costs per engine family are $ 5,851. Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 1.3 Costs of the Program Now that the basic fixed and variable cost inputs have been developed, we will use that information to identify a range of total annual costs for the program. This range reflects the testing scenario, as described in Section <IP_ADDRESS>, and three different levels of testing intensity that may occur under the Phase 1 and 2 requirements, which are described below. We will also develop a single point estimate of the program's annual cost. Finally, we will use this point estimate to present total costs for the first five years of the program, and costs over 30 years. These costs are presented for the entire industry.

The first level of testing intensity is the minimum number of vehicles that must be tested under Phase 1 of the program to demonstrate if a designated engine family passes the NTE criteria, i. e., five vehicle tests per family. This is the basis upon which the variable cost components were developed in Section 2.1, and is referred to as Phase 1 minimum. The second level of testing is the maximum number of vehicles that could be required under Phase 1, i. e., 10 vehicle tests per family. This is referred to as Phase 1 maximum. The third level of testing is a worst case where a manufacturer must complete Phase 2 testing for an engine family. At its maximum, Phase 2 requires up to 20 vehicle tests per family. This is referred to as Phase 2 maximum.

Overall, our methodology for estimating the costs associated with the three testing levels is simple. We assume that a manufacturer will complete each level of testing in discrete steps. For example, after completing Phase 1 minimum, the test results for the engine family will be thoroughly evaluated at the manufacturer's technical center. If one or more of the vehicles do not pass the testing criteria, the manufacturer is assumed to return to the field to continue testing five more vehicles, i. e., Phase 1 maximum. For the purposes of this analysis, this means that the variable cost of Phase 1 maximum testing is twice the cost of performing Phase 1 minimum testing. Similarly, the variable cost of Phase 2 maximum, i. e., 20 vehicles, is twice the cost of Phase 1 maximum, i. e., 10 vehicles. The fixed cost of testing is constant for each of the three testing intensities, since the cost of purchasing the portable measurement systems does not change with the number of tests performed.

1.3.1 Variable Costs by Level of Testing Intensity As noted above, fixed costs do not change by the number of tests performed, although variable costs do vary by testing intensity. Therefore, the first step in estimating the range of annual costs is to determine variable cost per family for each of the testing levels. This is presented in Table 1 8.

The next step is to find the range of annual costs for all manufacturers, i. e., all engine families. Under the program, we may generally select up to 25 percent of an engine manufacturer' families for testing each year. In the 2005 model year, there were 71 heavy duty diesel engine families certified. Hence, we may select up to 18 engine families per year. Using this value, the resulting range of annual costs for all manufacturers is shown in Table 1 9. Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 1.3.2 Total Annual Costs by Level of Testing Intensity Table 1 10 summarizes the fixed and variable cost estimates and presents the total annual cost for each testing level. The low end of the range is about $ 1.6 million per year for Phase 1 minimum, and the high end of the range is $ 2.1 million for Phase 2 maximum.

1.3.3. Total Annual Cost Point Estimate Our point estimate assumes the overall program will reflect the average of weighted at 80 percent of the Phase 1 minimum average cost, 10 percent of the Phase 1 maximum average cost, and 10 percent of the Phase 2 maximum average cost. This reflects our belief that most of the engine families will be designed and built in full conformance with the applicable NTE standards. But also that the program will identify some level of potential nonconformance. Table 1 11 summarizes the Phase 1 minimum and Phase 2 maximum costs from the previous table for convenience and presents our point estimate of the total annual cost for all manufacturers. The point estimate is $ 1.68 million per year. Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 1.3.4. Total Costs Over 5 and 30 Years We developed an estimate of the total program costs over both 5 and 30 years using the annual point estimate costs from Table 1 12 and a discount rate of seven percent per annum. As shown, the 5 year cost is about $ 6.89 million and the 30 year cost is about $ 20.85 million. Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 Chapter 1 References 1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Characterizing Exhaust Emissions from Light Duty Gasoline Vehicles in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area. ERG. EPA Contract Number GS 10F 0036K. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Awarded February 2004.

2. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation June 2003. USDL: 03 446. U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, D. C.

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Mobile Source Emission Factors: Populations, Usage and Emissions of Diesel Nonroad Equipment in EPA Region 7. Agency Form Number 0619.11, Supporting Statement, Part A. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. March 2004. EPA Edocket No. OAR 2003 0225 0003. Submitted to OMB for Review on 05 05 2005 Table 1 1. Total Annualized Fixed Costs1 Cost per PEMS Unit ($) Annualized cost of PEMS Unit ($) Annual Cost per Manufacturer ($) Number of Manufacturers (#) Total Annual Cost ($)

140,000 34,145 102,435 13 1,331,655 1 2004 dollars. Table 1 2. Limited Vehicle Access and Overnight Travel Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Activity Hrs Labor Type Activity Hrs Labor Type Activity Hrs Labor Type Activity Hrs Labor Type Activity Hrs Labor Type Travel 4 B1 V1, V2 Warm Up 1 T V4 Set to

Spec 1 T V5 Set to

Spec 1 T Travel 4 B V1, V22 History 2 E Shift Wait Time 8 B V4 History 1 E V 5 History 1 E V1, V2 Setto Spec 2 T V3 Set to

Spec 1 T V4 Install V3 Warm 1.5 B V5 Install 1.5 B V1, V2 Install 3 B V3 History 1 E Shift Wait Time 8 B Shift Wait Time 8 B Misc. Time 1 B V1, V2 Data Acquisition 1 B V3, V4 Data Acquisition 1 B V5 Remove .75 B V1, V2 Remove 1.5 B V3, V4 Remove 1.5 B V5 Data Acquisition .5 B V3 Install 1.5 B Misc. Time 1 B Misc. Time 1 B Misc. Time 1 B Totals 10 T 15 T 14 T 13 T 4 T 10 E 14 E 14 E 13 E 4 E 1 T= Technician, E= Engineer, B= Both 2 V = Vehicle ( identifier). Table 1 3. Labor Compensation Rates BLS Category1 In Use Testing Category Total Compensation2 ($/ Hour)

Technical3 Engineer 32 Precision Production, Craft, and Repair4 Technician 29 Executive, administrative, and managerial5 Manager 48 1 BLS 2003, inflated by 2.7%.

2 Total compensation includes wages and salaries, paid leave, supplemental pay, and insurance. Rounded to the nearest whole dollar. June 2003 dollars.

3 Table 11, Private industry, goods producing and service producing industries, by occupational group; All workers, goods producing industries; White collar occupations; Professional specialty and technical.

4 Table 11, Private industry, goods producing and service producing industries, by occupational group; All workers, goods producing industries; Blue collar occupations; Precision production, craft, and repair.

5 Table 11, Private industry, goods producing and service producing industries, by occupational group; All workers, goods producing industries; White collar occupations; Executive, administrative, and managerial. Table 1 4. Direct Labor Costs Per Vehicle Test 1 ( Based on Phase 1 Minimum Five Vehicle Tests per Engine Family) 2 Labor Rate Type Hours Per Family ( 5 tests) Hourly Compensation ($ per hour) Total Cost ($/ 5 tests) Cost Per Test ($/ test)

Engineer Technician Engineer Technician Regular 40 40 32 29 2440 488 Overtime2 15 16 48 44 1424 285 Total     3864 773 1 2004 dollars.

2 Based on Phase 1 testing five vehicles.

3 Overtime paid for work exceeding 40 hours/ week at 1.5 times the regular pay rate. Table 1 5. Variable Costs Per Test Vehicle1 ($/ test)

Scenari o Direct Labor2 Labor Overhead 3 Other Direct Costs4 Voided Tests5 General and Administrativ e6 Total 773 773 100 165 118 1,928 1 2004 dollars. 2 See Table 1 4. 3 100 percent of direct labor. 4 General supplies, PEMS maintenance, calibration gases, FID fuel, etc. 5 Assumes 10 percent of tests are void ( i. e., 0.10 * ( direct labor, labor overhead, and other direct costs)). 6 6.5 percent of all costs. Table 1 6. Post Test Data Analysis and Reporting Variable Cost Per Family1 Activity Hours/ Test ( hrs) 2 Cost/ Test ($) Cost Per Engine Family ($/ 5 Tests)

Manager Engineer Manager Engineer Manager Engineer Total QA Measurements 0.056 3.0 2.69 96.00 13 480 493 Load Database 0.056 0.278 2.69 8.90 13 45 58 Analysis,

Write Report, Archive 0.056 1.167 2.69 37.34 13 187 200 Total 0.168 4.445 8.07 142.24 40 711 751 1 2003 dollars.

2 See USEPA 2004. Table 1 7. Summary of Variable Costs Per Engine Family1 ($/ family)

Direct Labor Labor Overheard2 Incentive Travel General and Administrative3 Total 1,171 1,171 750 2402 357 5,851 1 2004 dollars.

2 100% of direct labor.

3 6.5% of all costs. Table 1 8. Summary of Variable Costs Per Engine Family by Level of Testing Intensity1 ($)

Phase 1 Minimum2 Phase 1 Maximum3 Phase 2 Maximum4 Scenario Vehicle Testing5 Engine Family Total Vehicle Testing5 Engine Family Total Vehicle Testing5 Engine Family Total 9,640 5,851 15,491 19,280 5,851 25,131 38,560 5,851 44,411 1 2004 dollars.

2 Phase 1 minimum = 5 test vehicles.

3 Phase 1 maximum = 10 test vehicles.

4 Phase 2 maximum = 20 test vehicles.

5 Cost per vehicle from Table 1 5 multiplied by the number of vehicles tested. Table 1 9. Total Annual Variable Costs for All Manufacturers by Level of Testing Intensity1 ($)

Scenario Phase 1 Minimum2 Phase 1 Maximum3 Phase 2 Maximum4 Cost Per Engine Family # Families Per Year5 Total Cost Per Engine Family # Families Per Year Total Cost Per Engine Family # Families Per Year Total 15,491 18 278,838 25,131 18 452,358 44 18 799 1 2004 dollars.

2 Phase 1 requires that a minimum of 5 test vehicles.

3 The maximum number of vehicles tested in Phase 1 is 10.

4 The maximum number of vehicles tested through Phase 2 is 20.

5 25% of a total of 71 engine families certified in the 2005 model year. Table 1 10. Total Annual Costs for All Manufacturers by Level of Testing1 Intensity ($ Thousands)

Scenario Phase 1 Minimum2 Phase 1 Maximum3 Phase 2 Maximum4 Fixed Cost Variable Cost Total Fixed Cost Variable Cost Total Fixed Cost Variable Cost Total 1,332 279 1,611 1,332 452 1,784 1,332 799 2,131 1 2004 dollars. 2 Phase 1 minimum = 5 vehicle tests. 3 Phase 1 maximum = 10 vehicle tests. 4 Phase 2 maximum = 20 vehicle tests. Table 1 11. Total Annual Cost Point Estimate for All Manufacturers1 ($ Thousands)

Phase 1 Minimum Phase 2 Maximum Phase 2 Maximum Point Estimate2 Scenario Fixed Cost Variable Cost Total Fixed Cost Variable Cost Total Fixed Cost Variable Cost Total Fixed Cost Variable Cost Total 1,332 279 1,611 1,332 452 1,784 1,332 799 2,131 1,332 348 1,680 1 2004 dollars.

2 Assumes a 80/ 10/ 10 split between Phase 1 minimum, Phase 1 maximum, and Phase 2 maximum, respectively. Table 1 12. Total Program Cost Over 5 and 30 Years1 ( Based on Point Cost Estimate) ( thousands of $)

Years Annualized Fixed Costs Annual Variable Costs Total Annual Costs 2005 2034 1332 348 1,680 30 Year NPV in 2005 16,530 4319 20,849 1st 5 Year NPV in 2005 5461 1423 6,888 1 2004 dollars.


[Federal Register: May 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26301-26303]
[DOCID:fr11my10-136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62033; File No. SR-BATS-2010-009]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Add
Seventy-Five Options Classes to the Penny Pilot Program

May 4, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 30, 2010, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal for the BATS
Exchange Options Market (``BATS Options'') to designate seventy-five
options classes to be added to the Penny Pilot Program (``Penny
Pilot'') on May 3, 2010.\3\ The Exchange is not proposing to amend any
rule text, but simply administering or enforcing an existing rule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The rules of BATS Options, including rules applicable to
BATS Options' participation in the Penny Pilot, were approved on
January 26, 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61419
(January 26, 2010), 75 FR 5157 (February 1, 2010) (SR-BATS-2009-
031). BATS Options commenced operations on February 26, 2010. This
proposal represents the first expansion of classes subject to the
Penny Pilot since BATS Options commenced operations.
    \4\ See Rule 21.5 regarding the Penny Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to identify the next seventy-five
options classes to be added to the Penny Pilot effective May 3, 2010.
In the Exchange's filing to adopt rules to govern BATS Options,\5\ the
Exchange proposed commencing operations for BATS Options by trading all
options classes that were, as of such date, traded by other options
exchanges pursuant to the Penny Pilot and then expanding the Penny
Pilot on a quarterly basis, 75 classes at a time, through August 2010.
Each such quarterly expansion would be of the seventy-five most
actively traded multiply listed options classes based on the national
average daily volume (``ADV'') for the six months prior to selection,
closing under $200 per share on the Expiration Friday prior to
expansion, except that the month immediately preceding the addition of
options to the Penny Pilot would not be used for the purpose of the six
month analysis. Index option products would be included in the
quarterly expansions if the underlying index levels were under 200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61097 (December 2,
2009), 74 FR 64788 (December 8, 2009) (SR-BATS-2009-031) (Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Establish Rules Governing the
Trading of Options on the BATS Options Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is identifying, in the chart below, seventy-five
options classes that it will add to the Penny Pilot on May 3, 2010,
based on ADVs for the six months ending March 31, 2010.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Nat'l ranking                   Symbol               Security name            Nat'l ranking            Symbol               Security name
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
153..............................  XLV.................  Health Care Select Sector  247.................  JCP.................  JC Penney Co Inc.
                                                          SPDR Fund.
155..............................  CIEN................  Ciena Corp...............  248.................  ACL.................  Alcon Inc.
157..............................  AMLN................  Amylin Pharmaceuticals     249.................  STP.................  Suntech Power Holdings
                                                          Inc.                                                                   Co Ltd.
158..............................  CTIC................  Cell Therapeutics Inc....  250.................  TLB.................  Talbots Inc.
159..............................  MDT.................  Medtronic Inc............  251.................  SYMC................  Symantec Corp.
162..............................  TIVO................  TiVo Inc.................  253.................  AMED................  Amedisys Inc.
163..............................  MNKD................  MannKind Corp............  255.................  TM..................  Toyota Motor Corp.
171..............................  MDVN................  Medivation Inc...........  257.................  HK..................  Petrohawk Energy Corp.
176..............................  BRKB................  Berkshire Hathaway Inc...  258.................  ENER................  Energy Conversion
                                                                                Devices Inc.
178..............................  APOL................  Apollo Group Inc.........  259.................  STT.................  State Street Corp.
181..............................  BSX.................  Boston Scientific Corp...  260.................  BHP.................  BHP Billiton Ltd.
185..............................  XLY.................  Consumer Discretionary     261.................  NFLX................  NetFlix Inc.
                                                          Sel. Sec. SPDR Fund.
188..............................  CLF.................  Cliffs Natural Resources   262.................  LDK.................  LDK Solar Co Ltd.
                                                          Inc.
190..............................  ZION................  Zions Bancorporation.....  263.................  SPG.................  Simon Property Group
                                                                                Inc.
194..............................  IOC.................  InterOil Corp............  264.................  TIF.................  Tiffany & Co.

197..............................  ITMN................  InterMune Inc............  265.................  BUCY................  Bucyrus International
                                                                                Inc.
204..............................  GME.................  GameStop Corp............  266.................  WAG.................  Walgreen Co.
209..............................  XLK.................  Technology Select Sector   268.................  IP..................  International Paper Co.
                                                          SPDR Fund.
210..............................  AKS.................  AK Steel Holding Corp....  271.................  XME.................  SPDR S&P Metals & Mining
                                                                                ETF.
212..............................  GRMN................  Garmin Ltd...............  272.................  KGC.................  Kinross Gold Corp.
213..............................  MRVL................  Marvell Technology Group   273.................  EP..................  El Paso Corp.
                                                          Ltd.
215..............................  XLP.................  Consumer Staples Select    274.................  SEED................  Origin Agritech Ltd.
                                                          Sector SPDR Fund.
216..............................  UNP.................  Union Pacific Corp.......  275.................  WIN.................  Windstream Corp.
220..............................  DTV.................  DIRECTV..................  279.................  DHI.................  DR Horton Inc.
223..............................  WMB.................  Williams Cos Inc/The.....  280.................  ADBE................  Adobe Systems Inc.
225..............................  MEE.................  Massey Energy Co.........  281.................  PCX.................  Patriot Coal Corp.
227..............................  CELG................  Celgene Corp.............  282.................  SPWR A..............  SunPower Corp.
229..............................  GMCR................  Green Mountain Coffee      284.................  LCC.................  US Airways Group Inc.
                                                          Roasters Inc.
231..............................  WDC.................  Western Digital Corp.....  285.................  PRU.................  Prudential Financial
                                                                                Inc.
234..............................  DAL.................  Delta Air Lines Inc......  286.................  LEN.................  Lennar Corp.
235..............................  FXE.................  CurrencyShares Euro Trust  287.................  EWT.................  iShares MSCI Taiwan
                                                                                Index Fund.
237..............................  COST................  Costco Wholesale Corp....  288.................  KBH.................  KB Home.
239..............................  MJN.................  Mead Johnson Nutrition Co  289.................  CREE................  Cree Inc.
240..............................  ALL.................  Allstate Corp/The........  290.................  SIRI................  Sirius XM Radio Inc.
241..............................  SII.................  Smith International Inc..  291.................  MMR.................  McMoRan Exploration Co.
242..............................  RTN.................  Raytheon Co..............  292.................  CENX................  Century Aluminum Co.
243..............................  DVN.................  Devon Energy Corp........  293.................  GFI.................  Gold Fields Ltd.
244..............................  MT..................  ArcelorMittal............  ....................  ....................  ........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ In particular, the
Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\7\ because it would promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free
and open market and a national market system, by identifying the
options classes to be added to the Penny Pilot in a manner consistent
with prior approvals and filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \8\ and paragraph
(f)(1) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\9\ the Exchange has designated this
proposal as one constituting a stated policy, practice, or
interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or
enforcement of an existing rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BATS-2010-009 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2010-009. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule changes between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make

available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-
2010-009 and should be submitted on or before June 1, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11095 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14700-14702]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3732; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-25-AD;
Amendment 39-18431; AD 2016-05-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6A-60AG, -65AG, -67AF, and -67AG
turboprop engines. This AD requires removing Woodward fuel control
units (FCUs) and installing an FCU that is eligible for installation.
This AD was prompted by incidents of corrosion and perforation of the
two-ply Cu-Be bellows in Woodward FCUs. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the Woodward FCU and engine, in-flight shutdown, and
loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 22, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 22,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada,
J4G 1A1; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: www.pwc.ca.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3732.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3732; 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 mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Besian Luga, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-
238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 the specified products. The
NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 10, 2015 (80 FR
69623). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    There have been in-service incidents involving corrosion and
perforation of the two-ply Cu-Be bellows in Woodward Fuel Control
Units (FCU) fitted to PT6A-60, -65 and -67 series engines. In
certain instances, associated bellows leakage has resulted in loss
of engine power, in-flight shutdowns (IFSD) and even accidents.
Engines installed

on the aeroplanes that are used for crop dusting, due to the
operational environment, are more susceptible to corrosion damage to
the subject bellows.
    Loss of engine power or shut down in flight by itself usually is
not considered a catastrophic event. However, on an aeroplane with
single engine installation, an engine power loss or IFSD at a
critical phase of flight could adversely affect the safe operation
of the aeroplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 69623, November 10,
2015).
    We updated the revision number and date of P&WC Service Bulletin
No. PT6A-72-14389.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described
previously. We 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

    P&WC has issued Service Bulletin (S.B.) No. PT6A-72-14389, Revision
No. 4, dated February 3, 2016 (P&WC S.B. No. 14389R4) and S.B. No.
PT6A-72-13473, Revision No. 1, dated May 26, 2015 (P&WC S.B. No.
13473R1). The service information describes procedures for replacing
Woodward FCUs. 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 of this
final rule.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 341 engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1.5 hours
per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
hour. Required parts cost about $1,000 per engine. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be
$384,478.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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 to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2016-05-13 Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (Type Certificate previously
held by Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., Pratt & Whitney Aircraft of
Canada, Ltd., and United Aircraft of Canada, Ltd.): Amendment 39-
18431; Docket No. FAA-2015-3732; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-25-
AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 22, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6A-
60AG, BS919 and BS1048 with pre-Service Bulletin (S.B.) No. PT6A-72-
13402, dated August 12, 2005 configuration; PT6A-65AG, BS708, BS903,
BS1101, and BS1102 with pre-S.B. No. PT6A-72-13408, dated July 3,
2006 configuration; PT6A-67AF; and PT6A-67AG turboprop engines with
Woodward fuel control units (FCUs), installed.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by incidents of corrosion and perforation
of the two-ply Cu-Be bellows in Woodward FCUs. We are issuing this
AD to prevent failure of the Woodward FCU and engine, in-flight
shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) For P&WC PT6A-67AF and PT6A-67AG engines, within 500 flight
hours (FHs) or one year after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, replace the Woodward FCU. Use paragraphs
3.A. and 3.C. of P&WC S.B. No. PT6A-72-14389, Revision No. 4, dated
February 3, 2016 to replace the FCU.
    (2) For P&WC PT6A-60AG BS919 and BS1048 engines with pre-S.B.
No. PT6A-72-13402 configurations, within 36 months after the
effective date of this AD, replace the Woodward FCU. Use paragraph
3.C.(1) and 3.C.(3) of P&WC S.B. No. PT6A-72-13473, Revision No. 1,
dated May 26, 2015 to replace the FCU.
    (3) For P&WC PT6A-65AG BS708, BS903, BS1101, and BS1102 engines
with pre-S.B. No. PT6A-72-13408 configurations, within 36 months
after the effective date of this AD, replace the Woodward FCU. Use
paragraphs 3.A.(1) and 3.A.(3) of P&WC S.B. No. PT6A-72-13473,
Revision No. 1, dated May 26, 2015 to replace the FCU.

(f) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the actions required by paragraph (e) of
this AD if you performed the actions before the effective date of
this AD in accordance with P&WC S.B. No. PT6A-72-14389, Revision No.
3, dated January 27, 2011; or S.B. No. PT6A-72-13473, dated March
12, 2015; or S.B. No. PT6A-72-13408, Revision No. 1, dated March 12,
2015; or earlier versions.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Besian Luga,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD CF-2015-23, dated July 23,
2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-3732. You may examine the
MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-3732-0002.

(i) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC) Service Bulletin (S.B.) No.
PT6A-72-14389, Revision No. 4, dated February 3, 2016 (P&WC S.B. No.
14389R4).
    (ii) P&WC S.B. No. PT6A-72-13473, Revision No. 1, dated May 26,
2015 (P&WC S.B. No. 13473R1).
    (3) For P&WC service information identified in this AD, contact
Pratt & Whitney Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec,
Canada, J4G 1A1; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet:
www.pwc.ca.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.
    (5) You may view this service information 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 Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 2, 2016.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-06124 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 20112-20113]
[DOCID:fr23ap07-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

April 16, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER03-421-012.
    Applicants: PPL Wallingford Energy LLC; PPL EnergyPlus, LLC.
    Description: PPL Wallingford Energy LLC and PPL EnergyPlus, LLC
submit a compliance Filing pursuant to the Commission's 3/23/07 order.
    Filed Date: 4/12/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070412-5031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 3, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-1398-005.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: South Carolina Electric & Gas Co submits a compliance
filing as required by the March 7, 2007 Order.
    Filed Date: 4/6/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070411-0070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 27, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-721-000.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Idaho Power Co. submits its Standard Large Generator
Interconnection Agreement filed with Telocaset Wind Power Partners,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/6/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070411-0068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 27, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-733-000.
    Applicants: Central Illinois Public Service Company; Central
Illinois Light Company; Illinois Power Company; Union Electric Company;
Ameren Illinois Utilities.
    Description: Ameren Services Co's et al. submits an application to
make sales to affiliates for capacity for the period of 6/1/07-9/30/07.
    Filed Date: 4/11/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070412-0096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 2, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-739-000.
    Applicants: Aquila Long Term, Inc.
    Description: Aquila Long Term, Inc submits a Notice of Cancellation
of its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1, effective 6/11/07.
    Filed Date: 4/12/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070413-0145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 3, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-740-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: Southwestern Electric Power Co submits a Power Supply
Agreement for the Requirements Service dated 9/30/05 with Hope Water &
Light Commission, Rate Schedule 210.
    Filed Date: 4/12/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070413-0146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 3, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-741-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: Southwestern Electric Power Co submits a Power Supply
Agreement for Requirements Service dated 12/13/06 with the City of
Bentonville, Arkansas, Rate Schedule 211.
    Filed Date: 4/12/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070413-0147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 3, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-742-000.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: MidAmerican Energy Company submits the Confirmation
Letter dated 4/9/07 with the City of Eldridge, Iowa and request waiver
of the regulations.
    Filed Date: 4/12/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070413-0148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, May 3, 2007.

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

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

Philis J. Posey,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7630 Filed 4-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25475-25478]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10328]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0331; FRL-9666-9]

Inquiry To Learn Whether Businesses Assert Business
Confidentiality Claims Regarding Waste Import and Export

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) receives from time
to time Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documentation
received or issued by EPA or data contained in EPA database systems
pertaining to the export and import of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste from/to the United States, the
export of cathode ray tubes (CRTs) and spent lead acid batteries
(SLABs) from the United States, and the export and import of RCRA
universal waste from/to the United States. These documents and data may
identify or reference multiple parties, and describe transactions
involving the movement of specified materials in which the parties
propose to participate or have participated. The purpose of this notice
is to inform ``affected businesses'' about the documents or data sought
by these types of FOIA requests in order to provide the businesses with
the opportunity to assert claims that any of the information sought
that pertains to

them is entitled to treatment as confidential business information
(CBI), and to send comments to EPA supporting their claims for such
treatment. Certain businesses, however, do not meet the definition of
``affected business,'' and are not covered by today's notice. They
consist of any business that actually submitted to EPA any document at
issue pursuant to applicable RCRA regulatory requirements and did not
assert a CBI claim as to information that pertains to that business in
connection with the document at the time of its submission; they have
waived their right to do so at a later time. Nevertheless, other
businesses identified or referenced in the documents that were
submitted to EPA by the submitting business may have a right to assert
a CBI claim concerning information that pertains to them and may do so
in response to this notice.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2012. The period
for submission of comments may be extended if, before the comments are
due, you make a request for an extension of the comment period and it
is approved by the EPA legal office. Except in extraordinary
circumstances, the EPA legal office will not approve such an extension
without the consent of any person whose request for release of the
information under the FOIA is pending.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0331, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Address: Eva Kreisler, International Compliance Assurance
Division, Office of Federal Activities, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2254A,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2012-0331. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Instructions about how to submit comments
claimed as CBI are given later in this notice.
    The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment. Please include your name and
other contact information with any disk or CD-ROM you submit by mail.
If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and
cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider
your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index.
    Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the HQ EPA Docket Center,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The 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
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
docket for this notice is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eva Kreisler, International Compliance
Assurance Division, Office of Federal Activities, Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
2254A, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Today's notice relates to any documents or
data in the following areas: (1) Export of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste, during calendar year 2011 or
before, under 40 CFR part 262, subparts E and H; (2) import of RCRA
hazardous waste, during calendar year 2011 or before, under 40 CFR part
262, subparts F and H; (3) transit of RCRA hazardous waste, during
calendar year 2011 or before, under 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, through
the United States and foreign countries; (4) export of cathode ray
tubes, during calendar year 2011 or before, under 40 CFR part 261,
subpart E; (5) exports of non-crushed spent lead acid batteries with
intact casings, during calendar year 2011 or before, under 40 CFR part
266 subpart G; (6) export and import of RCRA universal waste, during
calendar year 2011 or before, under 40 CFR part 273, subparts B, C, D,
and F; (7) submissions from transporters, during calendar year 2011 or
before, under 40 CFR part 263, or from treatment, storage or disposal
facilities under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, related to exports or
imports of hazardous waste which occurred during calendar year 2011 or
before, including receiving facility notices under 40 CFR 264.12(a)(1)
and 265.12(a)(1) and import consent documentation under 40 CFR
264.71(a)3) and 265.71(a)(3).

I. General Information

    EPA has previously published notices similar to this one in the
Federal Register, the latest one being at 76 FR 362, January 4, 2011
that address issues similar to those raised by today's notice. The
Agency did not receive any comments on the previous notices. Since the
publication of the January 3, 2012 notice, the Agency has continued to
receive FOIA requests for documents and data contained in EPAs database
related to hazardous waste exports and imports.

II. Issues Covered by This Notice

    Specifically, EPA receives FOIA requests from time to time for
documentation or data related to hazardous waste exports and imports
that may identify or reference multiple parties, and that describe
transactions involving the movement of specified materials in which the
parties propose to participate or have participated. This notice
informs ``affected businesses,'' \1\ which could include, among others,
``transporters'' \2\ and ``consignees,'' \3\ of

the requests for information in EPA database systems and/or contained
in one or more of the following documents: (1) Documents related to the
export of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous
waste, during calendar year 2011 or before, under 40 CFR part 262,
subparts E and H, including but not limited to the ``notification of
intent to export,'' \4\ ``manifests,'' \5\ ``annual reports,'' \6\
``EPA acknowledgements of consent,'' \7\ ``any subsequent communication
withdrawing a prior consent or objection,'' \8\ ``responses that
neither consent nor object,'' ``exception reports,'' \9\ ``transit
notifications,'' \10\ and ``renotifications;'' \11\ (2) documents
related to the import of hazardous waste, during calendar year 2011 or
before, under 40 CFR part 262, subparts F and H, including but not
limited to notifications of intent to import hazardous waste into the
U.S. from foreign countries; (3) documents related to the transit of
hazardous waste, during calendar year 2011 or before, under 40 CFR part
262, subpart H, including notifications from U.S. exporters of intent
to transit through foreign countries, or notifications from foreign
countries of intent to transit through the U.S.; (4) documents related
to the export of cathode ray tubes (CRTs), during calendar year 2011 or
before, under 40 CFR part 261, subpart E, including but not limited to
notifications of intent to export CRTs; (5) documents related to the
export of non-crushed spent lead acid batteries (SLABs) with intact
casings, during calendar year 2011 or before, under 40 CFR part 266
subpart G, including but not limited to notifications of intent to
export SLABs; (6) submissions from transporters under 40 CFR part 263,
or from treatment, storage or disposal facilities under 40 CFR parts
264 and 265, related to exports or imports of hazardous waste which
occurred during calendar year 2011 or before, including receiving
facility notices under 40 CFR 264.12(a)(1) and 265.12(a)(1) and import
consent documentation under 40 CFR 264.71(a)(3) and 265.71(a)(3), and
(7) documents related to the export and import of RCRA ``universal
waste'' \12\ under 40 CFR part 273, subparts B, C, D, and F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``affected business'' is defined at 40 CFR
2.201(d), and is set forth in this notice, below.
    \2\ The term ``transporter'' is defined at 40 CFR 260.10.
    \3\ The term ``consignee'' is defined, for different purposes,
at 40 CFR 262.51 and 262.81(c).
    \4\ The term ``notification of intent to export'' is described
at 40 CFR 262.53.
    \5\ The term ``manifest'' is defined at 40 CFR 260.10.
    \6\ The term ``annual reports'' is described at 40 CFR 262.56.
    \7\ The term ``EPA acknowledgement of consent'' is defined at 40
CFR 262.51.
    \8\ The requirement to forward to the exporter ``any subsequent
communication withdrawing a prior consent or objection'' is found at
42 U.S.C. 6938(e).
    \9\ The term ``exception reports'' is described at 40 CFR
262.55.
    \10\ The term ``transit notifications'' is described at 40 CFR
262.53(e).
    \11\ The term ``renotifications'' is described at 40 CFR
262.53(c).
    \12\ The term ``universal waste'' is defined at 40 CFR 273.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain businesses, however, do not meet the definition of
``affected business,'' and are not covered by today's notice. They
consist of any business that actually submitted information responsive
to a FOIA request, under the authority of 40 CFR parts 260 through 266
and 268, and did not assert a claim of business confidentiality
covering any of that information at the time of submission. As set
forth in the RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 260.2(b), ``if no such
[business confidentiality] claim accompanies the information when it is
received by EPA, it may be made available to the public without further
notice to the person submitting it.'' Thus, for purposes of this notice
and as a general matter under 40 CFR 260.2(b), a business that
submitted to EPA the documents at issue, pursuant to applicable
regulatory requirements, and that failed to assert a claim as to
information that pertains to it at the time of submission, cannot later
make a business confidentiality claim.\13\ Nevertheless, other
businesses identified or referenced in the same documents that were
submitted to EPA by the submitting business may have a right to assert
a CBI claim concerning information that pertains to them and may do so
in response to this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ However, businesses having submitted information to EPA
relating to the export and import of RCRA universal waste are not
subject to 40 CFR 260.2(b) since they submitted information in
accordance with 40 CFR part 273, and not parts 260 through 266 and
268, as set forth in 40 CFR 260.2(b). They are therefore affected
businesses that could make a claim of CBI at the time of submission
or in response to this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA may develop its own documents and organize into
its database systems information that was originally contained in
documents from submitting businesses relating to exports and imports of
hazardous waste. If a submitting business fails to assert a CBI claim
for the documents it submits to EPA at the time of submission, not only
does it waive its right to claim CBI for those documents, but it also
waives its right to claim CBI for information in EPA's documents or
databases that is based on or derived from the documents that were
originally submitted by that business.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ With the exception, noted above, of the submission of
information relating to the export and import of RCRA universal
waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.204(c) and (e), this notice inquires
whether any affected business asserts a claim that any of the requested
information constitutes CBI, and affords such business an opportunity
to comment to EPA on the issue. This notice also informs affected
businesses that, if a claim is made, EPA would determine under 40 CFR
part 2, subpart B, whether any of the requested information is entitled
to business confidential treatment.

1. Affected Businesses

    EPA's FOIA regulations at 40 CFR 2.204(c)(1) require an EPA office
that is responsible for responding to a FOIA request for the release of
business information (``EPA office'') ``to determine which businesses,
if any, are affected businesses * * *.'' ``Affected business'' is
defined at 40 CFR 2.201(d) as, ``* * * with reference to an item of
business information, a business which has asserted (and not waived or
withdrawn) a business confidentiality claim covering the information,
or a business which could be expected to make such a claim if it were
aware that disclosure of the information to the public was proposed.''

2. The Purposes of This Notice

    This notice encompasses two distinct steps in the process of
communication with affected businesses prior to EPA's making a final
determination concerning the business confidentiality of the
information at issue: the preliminary inquiry and the notice of
opportunity to comment.
a. Inquiry To Learn Whether Affected Businesses (Other Than Those
Businesses That Previously Asserted a CBI Claim) Assert Claims Covering
Any of the Requested Information
    Section 2.204(c)(2)(i) provides, in relevant part:
    If the examination conducted under paragraph (c)(1) of this section
discloses the existence of any business which, although it has not
asserted a claim, might be expected to assert a claim if it knew EPA
proposed to disclose the information, the EPA office shall contact a
responsible official of each such business to learn whether the
business asserts a claim covering the information.
b. Notice of Opportunity To Submit Comments
    Sections 2.204(d)(1)(i) and 2.204(e)(1) of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations require that written notice be provided to
businesses that have made claims of business confidentiality for any of
the information at issue,

stating that EPA is determining under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, whether
the information is entitled to business confidential treatment, and
affording each business an opportunity to comment as to the reasons why
it believes that the information deserves business confidential
treatment.

3. The Use of Publication in the Federal Register

    Section 2.204(e)(1) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
requires that this type of notice be furnished by certified mail
(return receipt requested), by personal delivery, or by other means
which allows verification of the fact and date of receipt. EPA,
however, has determined that in the present circumstances the use of a
Federal Register notice is the only practical and efficient way to
contact affected businesses and to furnish the notice of opportunity to
submit comments. The Agency's decision to follow this course was made
in recognition of the administrative difficulty and impracticality of
directly contacting potentially thousands of individual businesses.

4. Submission of Your Response in the English Language

    All responses to this notice must be in the English language.

5. The Effect of Failure To Respond to This Notice

    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.204(e)(1) and 2.205(d)(1), EPA will
construe your failure to furnish timely comments in response to this
notice as a waiver of your business's claim(s) of business
confidentiality for any information in the types of documents
identified in this notice.

6. What To Include in Your Comments

    If you believe that any of the information contained in the types
of documents which are described in this notice and which are
currently, or may become, subject to FOIA requests, is entitled to
business confidential treatment, please specify which portions of the
information you consider business confidential. Information not
specifically identified as subject to a business confidentiality claim
may be disclosed to the requestor without further notice to you.
    For each item or class of information that you identify as being
subject to your claim, please answer the following questions, giving as
much detail as possible:
    1. For what period of time do you request that the information be
maintained as business confidential, e.g., until a certain date, until
the occurrence of a specified event, or permanently? If the occurrence
of a specific event will eliminate the need for business
confidentiality, please specify that event.
    2. Information submitted to EPA becomes stale over time. Why should
the information you claim as business confidential be protected for the
time period specified in your answer to question no. 1?
    3. What measures have you taken to protect the information claimed
as business confidential? Have you disclosed the information to anyone
other than a governmental body or someone who is bound by an agreement
not to disclose the information further? If so, why should the
information still be considered business confidential?
    4. Is the information contained in any publicly available material
such as the Internet, publicly available data bases, promotional
publications, annual reports, or articles? Is there any means by which
a member of the public could obtain access to the information? Is the
information of a kind that you would customarily not release to the
public?
    5. Has any governmental body made a determination as to the
business confidentiality of the information? If so, please attach a
copy of the determination.
    6. For each category of information claimed as business
confidential, explain with specificity why release of the information
is likely to cause substantial harm to your competitive position.
Explain the specific nature of those harmful effects, why they should
be viewed as substantial, and the causal relationship between
disclosure and such harmful effects. How could your competitors make
use of this information to your detriment?
    7. Do you assert that the information is submitted on a voluntary
or a mandatory basis? Please explain the reason for your assertion. If
the business asserts that the information is voluntarily submitted
information, please explain whether and why disclosure of the
information would tend to lessen the availability to EPA of similar
information in the future.
    8. Any other issue you deem relevant.
    Please note that you bear the burden of substantiating your
business confidentiality claim. Conclusory allegations will be given
little or no weight in the determination. If you wish to claim any of
the information in your response as business confidential, you must
mark the response ``BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL'' or with a similar
designation, and must bracket all text so claimed. Information so
designated will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed by, and
by means of, the procedures set forth in, 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. If
you fail to claim the information as business confidential, it may be
made available to the requestor without further notice to you.

III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or email. Please submit this information by
mail to the address identified in the ADDRESSES section of today's
notice for inclusion in the non-public CBI docket. Clearly mark the
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. In addition to
the submission of one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the notice by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

    Dated: April 20, 2012.
Susan E. Bromm,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2012-10328 Filed 4-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P