[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 93801-93804]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30031]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6894; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-120-AD;
Amendment 39-18729; AD 2016-25-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
report of two adjacent frame forks that were found cracked on the aft
lower deck cargo door (LDCD) of two Model A300-600F4 airplanes during
scheduled maintenance. This AD requires repetitive high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspections of the aft LDCD frame forks; a one-time
check of the LDCD clearances; and a one-time detailed visual inspection
of hooks, eccentric bushes, and x-stops; and corrective actions if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 26, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 26,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6894.

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-2016-
6894; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m.

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300
F4-600R series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
May 31, 2016 (81 FR 34285) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by a
report of two adjacent frame forks that were found cracked on the aft
LDCD of two Model A300-600F4 airplanes during scheduled maintenance.
The NPRM proposed to require repetitive HFEC inspections of the aft
LDCD frame forks; a one-time check of the LDCD clearances; and a one-
time detailed visual inspection of hooks, eccentric bushes, and x-
stops; and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracked or ruptured aft LDCD frames, which could
allow loads to be transferred to the remaining structural elements.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2015-0152, dated July 24, 2015 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300
F4-605R and A300 F4-622R airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During scheduled maintenance at frames (FR) 61 and FR61A on the
aft lower deck cargo door (LDCD) of two A300-600F4 aeroplanes, two
adjacent frame forks were found cracked.
    Subsequent analysis determined that, in case of cracked or
ruptured aft cargo door frame(s), loads will be transferred to the
remaining structural elements. However, these secondary load paths
will be able to sustain the loads for a limited number of flight
cycles only.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to the
rupture of one or more vertical aft cargo door frame(s), resulting
in reduced structural integrity of the aft cargo door.
    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert Operators
Transmission (AOT) A52W011-15 to provide inspection instructions.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive inspections [for cracking] of the aft LDCD frame forks
and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of corrective
action(s).
    This [EASA] AD is considered interim action and further [EASA]
AD action may follow.

    Required actions include a one-time check of the LDCD clearances
and a one-time detailed visual inspection of hooks, eccentric bushes,
and x-stops; and corrective actions if necessary. You may examine the
MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6894.

Comments

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

Request To Remove Requirements

    United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we remove the
requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of the proposed AD because
the identified work does not contribute to the detection of crack
formation.
    We do not agree with the request. At this time, Airbus is uncertain
of the cause of the cracking; it is possible that the affected aircraft
were incorrectly rigged. Incorrect rigging could lead to an improper
gap, which could lead to uneven loading on the door frame, thus
contributing to the cracking. The actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)
and (g)(2) of this AD are performed only one time and are not repeated.
No changes have been made to this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Reporting Requirement

    UPS requested that we revise the reporting requirement specified in
paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. UPS suggested an alternative method
for submitting inspection results and indicated the alternative would
add flexibility in the reporting method and maintain the intent of the
requirement.
    We agree, and have revised paragraph (i) of this AD accordingly.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A52W011-15,
Revision 00, including Appendices 1, 2, 3, and 4, dated July 23, 2015.
The service information describes procedures for repetitive HFEC
inspections for cracking of the aft LDCD frame forks; a one-time check
of the LDCD clearances; and a one-time detailed visual inspection of
hooks, eccentric bushes, and x-stops; and corrective actions if
necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 58 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                   Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections..................  4 work-hours x $85                 $0  $340 per inspection   $19,720 per
                                per hour = $340.                       cycle.                inspection cycle.
Reporting....................  1 work-hour x $85 per               0  $85 per inspection    $4,930 per
                                hour = $85.                            cycle.                inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that
will be required based on the results of the required inspection. We
have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
repairs:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                        Labor cost                  Parts cost            Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair............................  Up to 15 work-hours x $85   Up to $10,000.............  Up to $11,275.
                                     per hour = $1,275.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2016-25-03 Airbus: Amendment 39-18729; Docket No. FAA-2016-6894;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-120-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 26, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and A300 F4-622R
airplanes, certificated in any category, on which Airbus
Modification 12046 has been embodied in production. Modification
12046 has been embodied in production on manufacturer serial numbers
(MSNs) 0805 and above, except MSNs 0836, 0837, and 0838.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of two adjacent frame forks
that were found cracked on the aft lower deck cargo door (LDCD) of
two Model A300-600F4 airplanes during scheduled maintenance. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked or ruptured aft LDCD
frames, which could allow loads to be transferred to the remaining
structural elements. This condition could lead to the rupture of one
or more vertical aft LDCD frames, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the aft LDCD.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection Requirements

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, do
the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of
this AD, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission
(AOT) A52W011-15, Revision 00, dated July 23, 2015.
    (1) Do a one-time check of the aft LDCD clearances ``U'' and
``V'' between the latching hooks and the eccentric bush at FR60
through FR64A. If any value outside tolerance is found, adjust the
latching hook before further flight.
    (2) Do a one-time detailed inspection to detect signs of wear of
the hooks, eccentric bushes, and x-stops. If any wear is found, do
all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
    (3) Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to detect
cracking at all frame fork stations of the aft LDCD. If any crack is
found, replace the cracked frame fork before further flight. Repeat
the HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight
cycles.

(h) Compliance Times

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and
(h)(2) of this AD, do the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 4,500 total flight cycles.
    (2) At the applicable time specified by paragraph (h)(2)(i) or
(h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that have accumulated 8,000 or more total
flight cycles as of the effective date this AD: Within 100 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 8,000 total
flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Within 400 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Reporting

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2)
of this AD, report the findings (both positive and negative) of the
clearance check and detailed inspection required by paragraphs
(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, and each HFEC inspection required by
paragraph (g)(3) of this AD. Send the report to Airbus at Airbus
Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World
(https://w3.airbus.com/), or in accordance with paragraph 7 of
Airbus AOT A52W011-15, Revision 00, dated July 23, 2015. The report
must include the applicable information specified in Appendix 2 of
Airbus AOT A52W011-15, Revision 00, dated July 23, 2015.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(j) Post-Repair Provisions

    (1) Accomplishment of corrective actions required by this AD
does not terminate the repetitive HFEC inspections required by
paragraph (g)(3) of this AD.
    (2) If all frame forks are replaced at the same time on the aft
LDCD of an airplane, the next HFEC inspection required by paragraph
(g)(3) of this AD can be deferred up to 4,500 flight cycles after
the frame fork replacement.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(l) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
European Airworthiness Directive 2015-0152, dated July 24, 2015, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-6894.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15, Revision 00,
dated July 23, 2015, including the following appendices:
    (A) Appendix 1--Flowchart, undated.
    (B) Appendix 2--Reporting Sheet, undated. (None of the pages of
Appendix 2 are numbered.)
    (C) Appendix 3--titled ``Technical Disposition,'' Ref. TD/K12/
L3/02978/2015, Issue B, dated July 21, 2015. (Appendix 3 is
identified with an appendix number only on page 1 of Airbus Alert
Operators Transmission A52W011-15, Revision 00, dated July 23,
2015.)
    (D) Appendix 4--P/N identification for frame forks and bushings,
undated.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 7, 2016.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-30031 Filed 12-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PCA and EPA-ISIS-cement meeting

Emission Intensities and Controls

January 20, 2010

1:00pm

Call in #<PHONE_NUMBER>

EPA

Elineth Torres

Ravi Srivastava

Keith Barnett

Tom Walton

Samudra- contractor with EPA

Mike Laney- contractor with EPA

Jim Staudt – contractor with EPA

PCA

Ty Wilson

Ed Sullivan-

Dan _________ - Contractor with PCA

Stu Sessions – Contractor with PCA

D Roark -GCC

Agenda

Discussion based on PCA comments –Appendices 11 and 12

We are not going to cover comments on benefit analysis- but comments are being looked by the Benefit people

ISIS will be the model to be used for the promulgation of the NESHAP and for benefit analyses together with some air quality analysis

Projections have been updated- units and demand

EPA will be scheduling a call for Jan 27 at 3:00pm for discussion on import modeling

EPA to receive comments from PCA on running ISIS

Per Stu Sessions and Ty Wilson – Environomics just finished evaluation of model, PCA reviewing the comments.  EPA should expect to receive PCA comments by the end of Jan 2010

EPA to received data to update AVC functions per PCA comment –Appendix 13 page 15

Ty and Ed- are in the process of finalizing a statement with aggregate data from PCA’s Benchmarking Survey- data will be CBI

EPA to receive recommendation on which transportation cost reference to use in ISIS – Appendix 13 page 38

Stu- will get with Ed’s team and will get back to EPA with recommendation

-  Appendix 11 page 5- Emission Intensities (ton pollutant/on clinker)

PCA to revise emission intensities for NOx (by kiln type and perhaps state) and SO2 (by kiln type and state). EPA to provide tables of emission intensities –input spreadsheet

Can PCA provide baseline SO2 emissions- data derived from PCA's Labor Energy Survey

-  Appendix 11 page 7 -SO2 removal performance

Is the report that specifies SO2 removal performance from PCA’s consultant available for EPA review?

Bob? /Dan? / Cristal? –from vendors information

Can we get real performance (emissions) and control efficiency for the 5 kilns with wet scrubbers?

Years of scrubbers being installed?

Appendix 12 page 3

EPA needs background materials that back-up control performance assumptions used by PCA


[Federal Register: September 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 186)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54624]
[DOCID:fr26se07-36]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0926; FRL-8471-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Missouri State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that will fulfill the condition of a
previously-published approval (July 11, 2006). The revision will amend
the Construction Permits By Rule and require a preconstruction review
period before sources may begin construction.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
October 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2007-0926 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Amy Algoe-
Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule that is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of
the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional
information, see the direct final rule that is located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: September 13, 2007.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. E7-18791 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 45)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11533-11536]
[DOCID:fr08mr06-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 271 and 272

[EPA-R08-RCRA-2006-0047; FRL-8035-4]

South Dakota: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revision and Incorporation by Reference of Approved
State Hazardous Waste Management Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule and response to comments.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is granting final authorization to the hazardous waste
program revisions submitted by South Dakota. The Agency published a
Proposed Rule on September 27, 2005, and provided for public comment.
The comment period ended on October 27, 2005. No comments were received
regarding Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program issues.
There was one comment from South Dakota State Attorney General
regarding Indian country language. No further opportunity for comment
will be provided. This final rule also codifies and incorporates by
reference the authorized provisions of the South Dakota regulations in
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 272.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 8, 2006. The incorporation
by reference of authorized provisions in the South Dakota regulations
contained in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of March 8, 2006, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2006-0047. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: EPA Region 8, from 8 a.m. to 3

p.m., 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, contact:
Kris Shurr, phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or SDDENR, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Joe Foss

Building, 523 E. Capitol, Pierre, South Dakota 57501-3181, contact:
Carrie Jacobson, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kris Shurr, 8P-HW, U.S. EPA, Region 8,
999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202-2466, phone number: (303)
312-6139 FAX number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authorization of Revisions to South Dakota's Hazardous Waste Program
and Correction

    On October 25, 2004, South Dakota submitted final complete program
revision applications seeking authorization of their changes in
accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make a Final decision that South
Dakota's hazardous waste program revisions satisfy all of the
requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. For a list
of rules that become effective with this Final Rule, please see the
Proposed Rule published in the September 27, 2005 Federal Register at
70 FR 56419. EPA is making one correction to the Proposed Rule. In the
list of authorized provisions for Checklists 154 through 154.6 (Column
1, page 56421), the effective date for ``74:36:11:01'' is January 2,
2005.
    Response to Comments: EPA proposed to authorize South Dakota's
State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions on September 27,
2005 (70 FR 56419). EPA received only one comment from the State of
South Dakota, objecting to EPA's definition of Indian country, where
the State is not authorized to administer its program. Specifically,
the State disagreed that all ``trust land'' in South Dakota is Indian
country. However, in the comment letter, the State of South Dakota
conveyed to EPA that ``while we [the State] continue to object and
disagree on this issue, the state will accept EPA's authorization of
the hazardous waste program revisions as described in EPA's September
27, 2005 notice in the Federal Register.''
    EPA maintains the interpretation of Indian country in South Dakota
as described in the September 27, 2005 Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking. Further explanation of this interpretation of
Indian country can be found at 67 FR 45684 through 45686 (July 10,
2002).

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In the Proposed Rule published on September 27, 2005 (70 FR 56419),
EPA also proposed to codify EPA's authorization of South Dakota's base
hazardous waste management program

and its revisions to that program. In today's action, EPA is amending
Sec.  272.2101 to incorporate by reference South Dakota's authorized
hazardous waste regulations. Section 272.2101 also references the
demonstration of adequate enforcement authority, including procedural
and enforcement provisions, which provides the legal basis for the
State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program. In
addition, Sec.  272.2101 references the Memorandum of Agreement, the
Attorney General's Statements, and the Program Description which are
evaluated as part of the approval process of the hazardous waste
management program in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA. The September
27, 2005 Proposed Rule provides details about State provisions which
are not part of the codification, as well as the effect of South
Dakota's codification on enforcement and on Federal requirements
promulgated under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA).

III. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This
action authorizes and codifies State requirements for the purpose of
RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed
by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this action authorizes and codifies pre-existing requirements under
State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same
reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely authorizes and codifies State requirements as part of
the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental
health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
    Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for
authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it
reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
action will be effective March 8, 2006.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 271 and 272

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Incorporation by Reference, Indian lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: February 7, 2006.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 271 and 272 are
amended as follows:

PART 271--REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE
PROGRAMS

    EPA is granting final authorization under part 271 to the State of
South Dakota for revisions to its hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

PART 272--APPROVED STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for part 272 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

Subpart QQ--[Amended]

0
2. Subpart QQ is amended by adding Sec.  272.2101 to read as follows:

Sec.  272.2101  South Dakota State-Administered Program: Final
Authorization.

    (a) Pursuant to section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), South
Dakota has final authorization for the following elements as submitted
to EPA in South Dakota's base program application for final
authorization which was approved by EPA effective on November 2, 1984.
Subsequent program revision applications were approved effective on
June 17, 1991, November 8, 1993, March 11, 1994, September 23, 1996,
June 8, 2000, May 24, 2004 and March 8, 2006.
    (b) The State of South Dakota has primary responsibility for
enforcing its hazardous waste management program. However, EPA retains
the authority to exercise its inspection and enforcement authorities in
accordance with sections 3007, 3008, 3013, 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6927, 6928, 6934, 6973, and any

other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, regardless of
whether the State has taken its own actions, as well as in accordance
with other statutory and regulatory provisions.
    (c) State Statutes and Regulations. (1) The South Dakota
regulations cited in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section are
incorporated by reference as part of the hazardous waste management
program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. This
incorporation by reference is approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
of the South Dakota regulations that are incorporated by reference in
this paragraph are available from the South Dakota Legislative Research
Council, 3rd Floor, State Capitol, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD
57501, (Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    (i) The Binder entitled ``EPA Approved South Dakota Regulatory
Requirements Applicable to the Hazardous Waste Management Program'',
dated December, 2005.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) EPA considered the following statutes and regulations in
evaluating the State program but is not incorporating them herein for
enforcement purposes:
    (i) South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL), as amended, effective July
1, 2004, Title 1, State Affairs and Government: Chapter 1-26,
Administrative Procedures and Rules, sections 1-26-1(1), 1-26-1(4), 1-
26-1(8) introductory paragraph, 1-26-1(8)(a), 1-26-2, 1-26-6.6, 1-26-16
through 1-26-19, 1-26-19.1, 1-26-19.2, 1-26-27, 1-26-29, 1-26-30, 1-26-
30.1, 1-26-30.2, 1-26-30.4, 1-26-31, 1-26-31.1, 1-26-31.2, 1-26-31.4,
1-26-35 and 1-26-36; Chapter 1-27, Public Records and Files, sections
1-27-1, first sentence, 1-27-3, 1-27-9(2) and 1-27-28(2); Chapter 1-32,
Executive Reorganization, section 1-32-1(1); Chapter 1-40, Department
of Natural Resources, sections 1-40-4.1, 1-40-24, 1-40-31 and 1-40-34.
    (ii) SDCL, as amended, effective July 1, 2004, Title 15, Civil
Procedure: Chapter 15-6, Rules of Procedure in Circuit Courts, section
15-6-24(a)-(c).
    (iii) SDCL, as amended, effective July 1, 2004, Title 19, Evidence:
Chapter 19-13, Privileges, sections 19-13-2(1), 19-13-2(5), 19-13-3,
19-13-20 and 19-13-22.
    (iv) SDCL, as amended, effective July 1, 2004, Title 21, Judicial
Remedies: Chapter 21-8, Injunction, section 21-8-1.
    (v) SDCL, as amended, effective July 1, 2004, Title 22, Crimes:
Chapter 22-6, Authorized Punishments, sections 22-6-1 introductory
paragraph and 22-6-1(6).
    (vi) SDCL, as amended, effective July 1, 2004, Title 23, Law
Enforcement: Chapter 23-5, Criminal Identification, sections 23-5-1,
23-5-10(1), 23-5-10(3), 23-5-10(4) and 23-5-11 first sentence; Chapter
23-6, Criminal Statistics, section 23-6-4.
    (vii) SDCL, as amended, effective July 1, 2004, Title 34, Public
Health and Safety: Chapter 34-21, Radiation and Uranium Resources
Exposure Control, section 34-21-2(7).
    (viii) SDCL, as amended, effective July 1, 2004, Title 34A,
Environmental Protection: Chapter 34A-6, Solid Waste Disposal, section
34A-6-1.3(17); Chapter 34A-10, Remedies for Protection of Environment,
sections 34A-10-1, 34A-10-2, 34A-10-5, 34A-10-11, 34A-10-14 and 34A-10-
16, Chapter 34A-11, Hazardous Waste Management, sections 34A-11-1
through 34A-11-4, 34A-11-5, 34A-11-8 through 34A-11-12, 34A-11-13
through 34A-11-16, 34A-11-17 through 34A-11-19, 34A-11-21 and 34A-11-
22.
    (ix) SDCL, as amended, effective July 1, 2004, Title 37, Trade
Regulation, Chapter 37-29, Uniform Trade Secrets Act, section 37-29-
1(4).
    (x) Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD), Article 74:08,
Administrative Fees, effective August 29, 2004: Chapter 74:08:01, Fees
for Records Reproduction, sections 74:08:01:01 through 74:08:01:07.
    (3) The following statutory provisions are broader in scope than
the Federal program, are not part of the authorized program, are not
incorporated by reference and are not federally enforceable:
    (i) SDCL, as amended, effective July 1, 2004, Title 34A,
Environmental Protection, Chapter 34A-11, Hazardous Waste Management,
sections 34A-11-12.1, 34A-11-16.1, 34A-11-25 and 34A-11-26.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) Unauthorized State Amendments. South Dakota has adopted but is
not authorized for the following Federal final rules: (1) Removal of
Legally Obsolete Rules (HSWA/non-HSWA) [60 FR 33912, 06/29/95]; (2)
Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste: Implementation of OECD Council
Division (HSWA--Not delegable to States) [61 FR 16290, 04/12/96]; (3)
Clarification of Standards for Hazard Waste Land Disposal Restriction
Treatment Variances (HSWA) [62 FR 64504, 12/05/97]; and (4) Vacatur of
Organobromide Production Waste Listings (HSWA) [65 FR 14472, 03/17/00].
Those Federal rules written under RCRA provisions that predate HSWA
(non-HSWA) which the State has adopted, but for which it is not
authorized, are not Federally enforceable. In contrast, EPA will
continue to enforce the Federal HSWA standards for which South Dakota
is not authorized until the State receives specific authorization from
EPA.
    (5) Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement between
EPA Region 8 and the State of South Dakota, signed by the State of
South Dakota Department of Natural Resources on June 6, 1996, and by
the EPA Regional Administrator on June 25, 1996, although not
incorporated by reference, is referenced as part of the authorized
hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921 et seq.
    (6) Statement of Legal Authority. ``Attorney General's Statement
for Final Authorization'', signed by the Attorney General of South
Dakota on May 24, 1984, and revisions, supplements and addenda to that
Statement dated January 14, 1991, September 11, 1992, September 25,
1992, April 1, 1993, September 24, 1993, August 23, 1994, December 29,
1994, September 5, 1995, October 23, 1997, October 27, 1997, October
28, 1997, November 5, 1999, June 26, 2000, June 18, 2002 and October
19, 2004, although not incorporated by reference, are referenced as
part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under
subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.
    (7) Program Description. The Program Description and any other
materials submitted as supplements thereto, although not incorporated
by reference, are referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste
management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.
    3. Appendix A to part 272, State Requirements, is amended by adding
in alphabetical order, ``South Dakota'' and its listing to read as
follows:

Appendix A to Part 272--State Requirements

* * * * *

South Dakota

    The regulatory provisions include:
    Administrative Rules of South Dakota, Article 74:28, Hazardous
Waste, effective August 29, 2004, sections 74:28:21:01, 74:28:21:02,
74:28:21:03, 74:28:22:01, 74:28:23:01, 74:28:24:01, 74:28:25:01
through 74:28:25:05, 74:28:26:01, 74:28:27:01, 74:28:28:01 through
74:28:28:05, 74:28:29:01, 74:28:30:01 and 74:28:33:01; Article
74:36, Air Pollution Control Program, effective January 2, 2005,
section 74:36:11:01.

    Copies of the South Dakota regulations that are incorporated by
reference are available from the South Dakota Legislative Research
Council, 3rd Floor, State Capitol, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre,
SD 57501, (Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-2180 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Supporting Statement for

Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q:  Lifesaving, Electrical, Engineering and
Navigation Equipment, Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation
Devices (33 CFR 159)

OMB No.: 1625-0035

COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS:  CGHQ-10030 & Instruction

A.  Justification

1.  Circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.

The authority to prescribe regulations for lifesaving, electrical,
engineering, and navigation equipment, construction and materials, and
its use on inspected vessels derives from 46 U.S.C. 3306.  These
regulations are also authorized under 46 U.S.C. 3703 and 4302.  Specific
Subparts of Title 46 Subchapter Q are also authorized under 46 U.S.C.
2103 and 5115, and 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), and 1903.  Title 46 CFR Chapter I
Subchapter Q Parts 159 through 165 (165 requirements currently found in
NVIC 8–01 (Change 2)) contains the technical standards for approval by
the Coast Guard of specific types of safety equipment and materials that
are to be installed on vessels subject to Coast Guard jurisdiction.  The
authority to prescribe regulations for marine sanitation devices (MSD)
is at 33 U.S.C. 1322(b)(1).  The MSD regulations are found at 33 CFR
Part 159.

a.  Approval procedures for lifesaving, electrical, engineering, and
navigation equipment, construction and materials, and marine sanitation
devices (MSDs):  The general approval procedures for the equipment and
material of Subchapter Q are described in 46 CFR 159.  The standards for
Coast Guard approval of different equipment and material are contained
in 46 CFR Parts 160-165, as described below:

Lifesaving Equipment: 		46 CFR Part 160

Electrical Equipment: 		46 CFR Part 161

Engineering Equipment: 	46 CFR Part 162

Construction:			46 CFR Part 163

Materials:			46 CFR Part 164

Navigation Equipment		46 CFR Part 165 (NVIC 8-01, Change 2)

MSDs				33 CFR Part 159

The overall authority for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
applicable to all manufacturers of approved equipment, thus making it
applicable also to the equipment and material in Subchapter Q, is
described in 46 CFR 2.90 and 2.95.  In general, safety equipment and
material standards are intended to ensure that manufactured equipment
meet minimum levels of performance and safety.  To show that these have
been met, manufacturers are required to submit drawings, specifications,
and laboratory test reports before Coast Guard approval is given, as
described in the above regulations.

When the Coast Guard approves emergency and safety equipment for use
aboard commercial vessels and pleasure craft, the manufacturer is issued
a Certificate of Approval (COA).  This certificate and all other
documents (drawings, test reports, etc.) form the basis for the
certificate and must be retained for the period for which the
certificate is in effect (usually five years).

Navigation equipment requirements are currently required by SOLAS V for
vessels engaged on international voyages.  These requirements will be
codified in a proposed rule creating 46 CFR Part 165.  Currently, these
approvals are being conducted in accordance with NVIC 8–01 (Change 2).

Furthermore, the regulations in 46 CFR 160 require liferafts and certain
life preservers to be serviced periodically.  This servicing must be
recorded so that it can be determined later that it was indeed done.
Servicing records for lifesaving devices are retained by the servicing
organization for use by Coast Guard inspection personnel.  These records
form the basis of a servicing certificate, a copy of which is retained
on the vessel or drilling unit.  It serves as evidence that the
equipment is in operating condition and that the equipment was serviced
in accordance with the applicable regulations by an authorized servicing
facility.  Reports by liferaft servicing facilities of deficient
liferafts and deficient liferaft servicing are used to identify
production problems that could affect multiple liferafts in field
service, and liferaft servicing facilities requiring closer Coast Guard
oversight.  Such reports are occasional, only being required when a
reportable deficiency is observed.

b.  Instructional Materials:  Manufacturers are required to produce, and
vessel operators are required to use, instructional materials for
certain lifesaving, fire protection, engineering and navigation
equipment.  For the equipment cited in Subchapter Q requiring
instructional material, the manufacturers are generally required to
submit the instructional materials along with the application package to
the Coast Guard for approval.  Instructional material is necessary
because vessel crewmembers must have access to information on the proper
operation of lifesaving, fire protection, engineering and navigation
equipment.  These materials are used during training sessions and during
emergencies.  Applicable parts as can be seen in the Appendix A.

c.  Markings:  Subchapter Q requires manufacturers to identify
lifesaving, electrical, engineering and navigation equipment and some
construction and materials, with the following: manufacturer, model
number, capacity, approval number and other information concerning its
performance.  Additional markings are required in the case of certain
equipment, and are outlined in the applicable requirements for the
equipment in question.  Generally, vessel operators and Coast Guard
inspectors use this information to determine compliance with
regulations.  Applicable parts as can be seen in the Appendix A.

d.  Production Tests and Laboratory Inspections:  Subchapter Q
regulations also require the manufacturer to conduct and maintain
records of production tests for some of the equipment and material.
These tests are mainly material tests necessary to ensure that the
material being used in the construction of a lifesaving appliance meets
the minimum performance requirements with regard to strength, buoyancy,
and fire retardancy, as applicable.  The manufacturing processes are
also inspected regularly by lab inspectors – who issue their own
reports to the manufacturer – from independent laboratories certified
by the Coast Guard to ensure quality control.  Applicable parts as can
be seen in the Appendix A.

e.  Independent and Recognized Laboratories:  Independent Lab:  Some of
the production tests described above are required to be done through, or
certified by, ‘independent’ laboratories.  Thus, before laboratory
test reports can be accepted, the laboratory must demonstrate its
technical qualifications and independence.  The laboratory can satisfy
this requirement by submitting the information specified in 46 CFR
159.010-5 to the Coast Guard.  This is a reporting requirement that each
laboratory has to meet only once and is thus a one-time burden.

Recognized Lab:  Certain Subparts in Subchapter Q, Parts 159-165, not
only require that the laboratory is Coast Guard accepted, but also that
it is a ‘recognized laboratory’ listed in the Subpart.  At present,
there are 4 recognized labs.

The Coast Guard established regulations, in 46 CFR 159.010 and in some
Subparts of Subchapter Q, for an independent laboratory seeking to
become a recognized laboratory for conducting tests and inspections.
Only laboratories that enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the Coast Guard may perform the functions of a recognized
laboratory.  The MOU is a collection of information that is prepared and
submitted to the Coast Guard for approval by the laboratory seeking
recognition.  The MOU specifies the approval functions the laboratory
performs for the Coast Guard, and the laboratory’s working
arrangements with the Coast Guard.  The establishment of the MOU will
ensure that all independent laboratories that are recognized by the
Coast Guard follow similar procedures.  Provisions for ‘round-robin’
testing in the MOU will ensure that various recognized laboratories’
testing similar equipment using similar testing procedures obtain
comparable results.

This information collection supports the following strategic goals:

Department of Homeland Security

Prevention

Protection

Coast Guard

Maritime Safety

Maritime Stewardship

Prevention Policy and Response Policy Directorates (CG-5P & CG-5R)

Safety:  Eliminate deaths, injuries, and property damage associated with
commercial maritime operations.

Human and Natural Environment:  Eliminate environmental damage
associated with maritime transportation and operations on and around the
nation’s waterways.

2.  Purpose of the information collection.

a.  Approvals, b.  Instructional Materials, and c.  Markings:  Technical
plans, drawings, specifications, instructional materials, test reports
and service records are submitted to the Coast Guard to obtain and
maintain approval for a variety of lifesaving and safety equipment.  The
submitted technical data is then reviewed to determine compliance with
the technical requirements contained in specific regulations.  The plans
and drawings are copies of production drawings utilized by the
manufacturer in making the equipment.  The required instructional
materials and markings are also submitted to the Coast Guard with the
overall application for approval.

When Coast Guard approval is issued, a COA is sent to the manufacturer
of the equipment.  The certificates, plans, specifications, and
laboratory test reports used to issue approval are retained by the
manufacturer of the approved equipment to identify the specific
equipment approved and to permit the production of equipment identical
to the equipment samples originally tested.  The certificates also
specify an expiration date and provide the terms of the approval.
Subchapter Q thus requires that these documents be filed and retained by
the manufacturer.

d.  Production Tests and Laboratory Inspections:  Independent testing
laboratories that test the materials and equipment for compliance with
the applicable Coast Guard regulations issue reports.  The manufacturer
is required to retain laboratory or production test reports used by the
manufacturer to obtain approval from the Coast Guard.

Production test reports for approved equipment are reviewed either by
the independent laboratory or Coast Guard inspectors to determine that
production stock will be identical to those originally tested and
approved.  The purpose of these reports is to enable a comparison
between the construction and properties of production units to the
prototypes originally evaluated prior to issuance of Coast Guard
approval.

e.  Independent and Recognized Laboratories:  Upon being accepted by the
Coast Guard, the Independent Laboratories meet the criteria for the
reports they themselves issue to be accepted.  The information that each
laboratory must submit to gain such Coast Guard acceptance or
recognition:

Identifies the laboratory and principal person(s) to contact;

Verifies the independence of the laboratory from the organizations whose
products the laboratory will test;

Verifies the technical qualifications of the test personnel; and

Verifies the adequacy of equipment and facilities to conduct the testing
for which application is made.

An MOU, in the form of a prepared and signed document, is submitted to
the Coast Guard by an independent laboratory seeking Coast Guard
‘recognition’ to perform certain approval and production tests
specified in 46 CFR Subchapter Q.  A particular laboratory submits it
only once, at the time of initial application for recognition.  The MOU
is used by the Coast Guard to evaluate the capabilities of the
laboratory to perform the functions specified in the relevant
regulations, and to document the responsibilities of the laboratory and
of the Coast Guard in relation to equipment testing, inspection, and
approval.

3.  Consideration of the use of improved information technology.

The information may be submitted in writing or electronically via
e-mail.  We estimate that about 90% of the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements can be done electronically.  At this time, we estimate that
approximately 90% of the responses are collected electronically.

4.  Efforts to identify duplication.

There is no duplication, since the information is reported or kept only
once for each organization and each item.  There are no other Federal
Agencies or States with programs dealing with the same equipment and
technical requirements.  On the contrary, other Federal Agencies have
relied on Coast Guard approval as evidence of suitability for the
purpose intended when ordering items such as lifesaving equipment.

The information is unique to each piece of equipment or material and
organization, and no other information can be used in its place.

5.  Methods to minimize the burden to small businesses if involved.

This information collection does not have an impact on small businesses
or other small entities.

6.  Consequences to the Federal program if collection were conducted
less frequently.

This information is collected only once for each item manufacturer,
testing, and servicing organization.  The records that are submitted or
retained are the minimum needed to identify the equipment and ensure
that it has been tested and serviced properly.  There is thus no way to
reduce this frequency.

For laboratory acceptance, where the information is also collected only
once, if the information is not collected the Coast Guard would be
unable to evaluate the qualifications and procedures of laboratories
desiring recognition to perform and/or oversee certain tests of approved
equipment on behalf of the Coast Guard.

7.  Special collection circumstances.

This information collection is conducted in manner consistent with the
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8.  Consultation.

A 60-day Notice will be published in the Federal Register to obtain
public comment on this collection.

9.  Provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information
collection.

10.  Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents.

All information collected complies with the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) and Privacy Act.  If a manufacturer considers certain information
proprietary (e.g., trade secret), the Coast Guard will follow the
exception permitted by FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) and maintain
confidentiality.

11.  Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

There are no questions of sensitive language.

12.  Estimate of annual hour and cost burdens to respondents.

The estimated number of annual respondents is 958.

The estimated number of annual responses is 711,461.

The estimated hour burden is 118,594 hours.

The estimated cost burden is $4,818,786.

The burden to respondents is provided in Appendix B.  The wage rates
used are in accordance with the current edition of COMDTINST
7310.1(series) for “Out-Government” personnel.

a.  Approvals

i)  NEW APPLICATIONS:  We estimate that it will take a technical
specialist about 2 hours to prepare a new COA approval request.
Additionally, we estimate that we will receive COA approval requests for
new equipment equivalent to 3% of the total valid COAs of all type
approved equipment.  The position of a technical specialist is analogous
to a GS-13.

ii)  RENEWAL APPLICATIONS:  We estimate that it will take a technical
specialist about 0.5 hours to prepare a COA renewal request.
Additionally, since a COA is generally valid for a 5-year period, we
estimate that each year will receive COA renewal requests for 20% of all
type approved equipment.  The position of a technical specialist is
analogous to a GS-13.

iii)  MANUFACTURER RECORDKEEPING:  We estimate that annually it will
take a clerical specialist about 0.17 hours (10 min.) for each COA to
prepare and file the relevant documents, plans and test reports.  The
manufacturer usually retains these records as business records.  The
position of a clerical specialist is analogous to a GS-7.

iv)  SERVICING FACILITY RECORDKEEPING:  We estimate that it will take a
clerical specialist about 2 hours annually to prepare and file servicing
facility records of lifesaving equipment.  The position of a clerical
specialist is analogous to a GS-7.

v)  SERVICING FACILITY PROBLEM REPORTS:  We estimate that it will take a
technical specialist about 1 hour to prepare a lifesaving equipment
problem report.  We estimate that we will receive 1 problem report per
servicing facility per year.  The position of a technical specialist is
analogous to a GS-13.

b.  Instructional Materials

i)  NEW EQUIPMENT:  We estimate that it will take a technical specialist
about 8 hours to draft the training or instructional material for Coast
Guard approval and to provide the material with the equipment.
Additionally, we estimate that each year will receive new instructional
materials requests for 1.5% of all type approved equipment with
instructional materials.  The position of a technical specialist is
analogous to a GS-13.  Equipment approvals with this burden are shown in
the Appendix A (Column F).

ii)  REVISIONS:  We estimate that it will take a technical specialist
about 2 hours to update (revise) the training or instructional material
for Coast Guard approval and to provide the material with the equipment.
 Additionally, since a COA is generally valid for a 5-year period, we
estimate that each year we will receive instructional materials revision
requests for 20% of all type approved equipment with instructional
materials.  The position of a technical specialist is analogous to a
GS-13.  Equipment approvals with this burden are shown in the Appendix A
(Column F).

iii)  PACKING:  We estimate that it will take a workshop specialist
about 0.1 hours (6 min.) to produce and pack the instructional material
with each manufactured piece of type approved equipment.  We estimate
the number of annual responses as equal to 100% of all type approved
equipment with instructional materials times 200 units per type approved
equipment.  The position of a workshop specialist is analogous to a
GS-5.

c.  Markings

i)  NEW:  We estimate that it will take a workshop specialist about 0.1
hours (6 min.) to stencil or stamp the required marking on each newly
approved piece of type approved equipment.  We estimate the number of
annual responses as equal to 2.5% of all type approved equipment that
require markings times 200 units per type approved equipment.  The
position of a workshop specialist is analogous to a GS-5.

ii)  REVISIONS:  We estimate that it will take a workshop specialist
about 0.1 hours (6 min.) to stencil or stamp the required marking on
each manufactured piece of type approved equipment.  Additionally, since
a COA is generally valid for a 5-year period, we estimate the number of
annual responses as equal to 20% of all type approved equipment with
marking requirements times 200 units per type approved equipment.  The
position of a workshop specialist is analogous to a GS-5.  Equipment
approvals with this burden are shown in the Appendix A (Column G).

d.  Production Tests and Laboratory Inspections

i)  PRODUCTION TEST RECORDS:  We estimate that it will take a clerical
specialist about 2 hours annually to prepare and file production test
records of equipment.  There is 1 report per equipment manufacturer.
The position of a clerical specialist is analogous to a GS-7.  Equipment
approvals with this burden are shown in the Appendix A (Column H).

ii)  LABORATORY INSPECTIONS:  We estimate that it will take a clerical
specialist about 24 hours annually to prepare and file laboratory
inspection quality control procedure records of equipment.  The position
of a clerical specialist is analogous to a GS-7.  Equipment approvals
with this burden are shown in the Appendix A (Column H).  We estimate
that all manufacturers of the approved pieces of equipment that are
required to maintain production test records also undergo lab
inspections.

e.  Independent and Recognized Laboratories.

i)  INDEPENDENT LABORATORY APPLICATIONS:  We estimate that it will take
a technical specialist about 4 hours to prepare a new independent
laboratory application request.  We estimate that we will receive 2
applications per year.  The position of a technical specialist is
analogous to a GS-13.

ii)  RECOGNIZED LABORATORY MOU APPLICATIONS:  We estimate that it will
take a technical specialist about 80 hours to prepare an MOU
application.  We estimate that we will receive 0.1 MOU applications per
year (i.e., 1 per 10-year period).  The position of a technical
specialist is analogous to a GS-13.

iii)  RECOGNIZED LABORATORY MOU UPDATES:  We estimate that it will take
a technical specialist 15 hours to prepare an MOU update.  We estimate
that we will receive 1 MOU update per year.  The position of a technical
specialist is analogous to a GS-13.

13.  Total of annualized capital and start-up costs.

There are no capital, start-up or maintenance costs associated with this
information collection.

14.  Estimates of annualized Federal Government costs.

The estimated annual Federal Government cost is $914,738 (see Appendix
C).  The costs consist of processing applications for product approvals,
processing independent laboratory acceptances, filing lifesaving device
service records, lifesaving device manufacturers’ production test
monitoring, and lab application reviews.  The wage rates used are in
accordance with the current edition of COMDTINST 7310.1(series) for
“In-Government” personnel.

i)  NEW EQUIPMENT APPLICATION REVIEWS:  We estimate that it takes a
technical specialist between 4 and 80 hours to review and process each
application (including instructional materials).  For calculation
purposes, we use 24 hours per application.  The position of a technical
specialist is analogous to a GS-14.

ii)  RENEWAL EQUIPMENT APPLICATION REVIEWS:  We estimate that it takes a
technical specialist about 4 hours to review and process each renewal
application (including instructional materials).  The position of a
technical specialist is analogous to a GS-14.

iii)  LIFESAVING DEVICE SERVICING RECORDS:  We estimate that it will
take a clerical specialist about 0.05 hours (3 min.) to prepare and file
each copy of a servicing report at the local Coast Guard Marine
Safety/Inspection Office.  The position of a clerical specialist is
analogous to a GS-12.

iv)  SERVICING FACILITY PROBLEM REPORT REVIEWS:  We estimate that it
takes a field unit technical specialist about 0.5 to review a servicing
facility problem report.  The position of a field unit technical
specialist is analogous to a Lieutenant (LT; O-3).

v)   PRODUCTION TESTS AND QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES MONITORING
(ONSITE):  We estimate that it takes about 1 staff year (2,000 hours)
for Coast Guard personnel to monitor the monitor production tests and
quality control procedures for certain manufacturers.  The 1-year
estimate for a LT is shared between several Coast Guard offices.  At the
present time, most production tests are monitored by independent
laboratories in lieu of Coast Guard personnel.

vi)   PRODUCTION TESTS AND QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES MONITORING (VIA
INDEPENDENT LAB REPORTS):  We estimate that it takes a technical
specialist about 2 hours to review a production test report.  The
position of a technical specialist is analogous to a GS-14.

vii)  INDEPENDENT LABORATORY APPLICATION REVIEWS:  We estimate that it
takes a technical specialist about 2.5 hours to review and process each
application.  The position of a technical specialist is analogous to a
GS-14.

viii)  RECOGNIZED LABORATORY MOU APPLICATION REVIEWS:  We estimate that
it will take a technical specialist about 40 hours to review and process
each MOU.  Coast Guard engineering and legal specialists conduct the
review.  The position of a technical specialist is analogous to a GS-14.

ix)  RECOGNIZED LABORATORY MOU APPLICATION UPDATE REVIEWS:  We estimate
that it will take a technical specialist about 35 hours to review and
process each MOU update.  Coast Guard engineering and legal specialists
conduct the review.  The position of a technical specialist is analogous
to a GS-14.

15.  Explain the reasons for the change in burden.

The change (i.e., increase) in burden hours is an ADJUSTMENT due to an
increase in the estimated annual number of responses.  There is no
proposed change to the reporting or recordkeeping requirements of this
collection.  The reporting and recordkeeping requirements remain
unchanged.  The methodology for calculating responses and burden was
revised for Instructional Materials (Packing) and Marking (Revisions).
The revision is needed to more fully account for the activity level.

16.  Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication.

This information collection will not be published for statistical
purposes.

17.  Approval for not explaining the expiration date for OMB approval.

The OMB expiration date will be displayed on the Instruction sheet
related to the information collection request.

18.  Exception to the certification statement.

The Coast Guard does not request an exception to the certification of
this information collection.

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

This information collection does not employ statistical methods.

  Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 8-01 (Change 2) is
available at—   HYPERLINK
"http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/2001/NVIC_8-01_CH-2.pdf"
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/2001/NVIC_8-01_CH-2.pdf  .

  International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Chapter
V—Safety of Navigation.

  To obtain a count of all type approved equipment, we use the CGMIX
database and include all type approved equipment listed as
“APPROVED”, “PENDING”, and “EXPIRED” (within the last 12
months).”

1625-0035

  PAGE  8  of   NUMPAGES  8