[Federal Register: June 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 32289-32291]
[DOCID:fr12jn07-33]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0015; FRL-8325-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; State Operating Permit
Regulations (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1587.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0243

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 12, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0015, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket

Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Herring, Air Quality Policy
Division (C504-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On February 9, 2007 (72 FR 6233), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the
comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted
to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0015, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation

Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 202-
566-1742.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index

listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public
viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change,

unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: State Operating Permit Regulations (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1587.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0243.
    ICR Status: This ICR was originally scheduled to expire on March
31, 2007, but an emergency extension granted by OMB on March 13, 2007
extended the expiration date to June 30, 2007. Under OMB regulations,
the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of
information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title
40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved,
are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the
Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB
control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR
part 9.
    Abstract: Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires States to
develop and implement a program for issuing operating permits to all
sources that fall under any Act definition of ``major'' and certain
other non-major sources that are subject to Federal air quality
regulations. The Act further requires EPA to develop regulations that
establish the minimum requirements for those State operating permits
programs, to oversee implementation of the State programs, and to
operate a Federal operating permits program in areas not subject to an
approved State program.
    The EPA regulations setting forth requirements for the State
operating permits programs are at part 70, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations. These are referred to as the ``Part 70
Operating Permit Regulations,'' which are the subject of the ICR
addressed in this notice.
    In implementing title V of the Act and EPA's part 70 operating
permits regulations, State and local permitting agencies must develop
programs and submit them to EPA for approval (section 502(d)), and
sources subject to the program must develop operating permit
applications and submit them to the permitting authority within 1 year
after program approval (section 503). Permitting authorities will then
issue permits (section 503(c)) and thereafter enforce, revise, and
renew those permits at no more than 5-year intervals (section 502(d)).
Permit applications and proposed permits will be provided to, and are
subject to review by, EPA (section 505(a)). All information submitted
by a source and the issued permit shall also be available for public
review except for confidential information which will be protected from
disclosure (section 503(e)). Sources will semi-annually submit
compliance monitoring reports to the permitting authorities (section
504(a)). The EPA has the responsibility to oversee implementation of
the program and to administer a Federal operating permits program in
the event a program is not approved for a State (section 502(d)(3)) or
if EPA determines the permitting authority is not adequately
administering its approved program (section 502(i)(4)). The activities
to carry out these tasks are considered mandatory and necessary for
implementation of title V and the proper operation of the operating
permits program. This notice provides updated burden estimates from a
previously approved ICR.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for the part 70 collection of information is estimated to
average 248 hours per permitted source, and the annual burden for
permitting authorities to administer a part 70 program is estimated to
average 12,050 hours (about 80 hours per permitted source). Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements
which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond
to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Respondents to this information
collection come from two groups: (1) Sources required to obtain an
operating permit and (2) permitting authorities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 16,818 sources and 112 permitting
authorities.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, annually, and every five years.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 5,525,639 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $220,996,244, includes $0 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 416,091 hours in
the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This increase in burden for sources and
permitting authorities is due to expected changes in the existing
information collection activities to be

performed by sources, primarily an increase in permit renewal activity.

    Dated: June 5, 2007.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E7-11303 Filed 6-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 81 (Monday, April 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23260-23262]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08849]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0637; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-030-AD;
Amendment 39-17830; AD 2014-08-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-22-01 for
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-76A, B, and C
helicopters. AD 5002-22-01 required inspecting the main rotor lower
bifilar arm assembly (bifilar arm assembly) for a crack, and if there
is a crack, replacing the bifilar arm assembly. AD 2005-22-01 also
required a one-time test for the correct torque on the lug nuts, and if
necessary, conducting torque stabilization tests. This new AD retains
the requirements of AD 2005-22-01 and also requires replacing the main
rotor hub (MRH) pilot with a different part-numbered MRH pilot, which
is terminating action for the requirements of the AD. This AD was
prompted by the development of a terminating procedure for the
inspections required by AD 2005-22-01. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of a bifilar lug, damage to the main rotor system, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD is effective June 2, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 10,
2005 (70 FR 61721, October 26, 2005).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical
Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT 06614;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review service information at the FAA, Office
of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room
663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any incorporated by reference
service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-
647-5527) 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: Nicholas Faust, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification

Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2005-22-01, Amendment 39-14345 (70 FR 61721,
October 26, 2005) (AD 2005-22-01). AD 2005-22-01 applied to Sikorsky
Model S-76A, B, and C helicopters with a certain MRH pilot installed.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2013 (78 FR
44048). AD 2005-22-01 required repetitively inspecting the bifilar arm
assembly for a crack, and replacing the bifilar arm assembly if it has
a crack. If there is not a crack, AD 2005-22-01 required a one-time
test for the correct torque on the lug nuts, and if necessary,
conducting torque stabilization.
    After we issued AD 2005-22-01, Sikorsky produced a newly-redesigned
pilot with a larger flange diameter that provides greater support for
the bifilar assembly and reduces stress on the bifilar assembly
attachment lugs. The NPRM proposed to retain the repetitive inspection
requirements of AD 2005-22-01, but also proposed to require replacing
the MRH pilot, part number (P/N) 76103-08003-101, with newly-redesigned
MRH pilot, P/N 76103-08003-102, as terminating action.

Related Service Information

    Sikorsky issued S-76 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 76-65-62, dated
December 14, 2004, which describes procedures for inspecting the lower
bifilar assembly for a crack. Sikorsky has also issued ASB 76-65-65,
Basic Issue, dated March 22, 2012, which specifies measuring the MRH
diameter and, if the diameter is small, replacing the MRH pilot with a
newly-redesigned MRH pilot with a larger flange diameter.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 44048, July 23,
2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 181 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order
to comply with this AD:
     Inspecting the bifilar arm assembly requires about 4 work-
hours, at an average labor rate of $85 per hour, for a cost per
helicopter of $340 and a total cost to U.S. operators of $61,540.
     Replacing a cracked bifilar arm assembly requires about 4
work-hours, at an average labor rate of $85 per hour, and required
parts cost about $19,727, for a cost per helicopter of $20,067.
     Replacing the MRH pilot, P/N 76103-08003-101, with an MRH
pilot, P/N 76103-08003-102, requires about 0.7 work-hour, at an average
labor rate of $85 per hour, and required parts cost about $1,043, for a
cost per helicopter of $1,103 and a total cost to U.S. operators of
$199,643.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2005-22-01, Amendment 39-14345 (70 FR 61721, October 26, 2005), and
adding the following new AD:

2014-08-06 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-17830; Docket
No. FAA-2013-0637; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-030-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model S-76A, B, and C helicopters with a main
rotor hub (MRH) pilot, part number (P/N) 76103-08003-101, installed,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack on the MRH pilot
bifilar assembly lug, which could result in failure of a bifilar
lug, damage to the main rotor system, and subsequent loss of control
of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2005-22-01, Amendment 39-14345 (70 FR
61721, October 26, 2005).

(d) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective June 2, 2014.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) For MRH pilots with 1,500 or more hours time-in-service
(TIS), within 50 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 50 hours TIS, inspect the lower bifilar arm assembly for a
crack in the lug attachment area. Conduct the inspection of the
lower bifilar arm assembly by following the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraphs 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(6), of Sikorsky Alert
Service Bulletin No. 76-65-62, dated December 14, 2004 (ASB 76-65-
62).
    (i) If there is a crack on any bifilar assembly arm lug, before
further flight, replace the bifilar arm assembly with an airworthy
bifilar arm assembly.
    (ii) If no crack is found at the initial inspection, perform a
one-time torque test.

Perform the torque test and the additional torque procedures as
stated in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.(1)
through 3.B.(3), of ASB 76-65-62. The torque test is not required at
the recurring inspection intervals of the lower bifilar arm
assembly.
    (iii) Within 600 hours TIS, replace the MRH pilot, P/N 76103-
08003-101, with an MRH pilot, P/N 76103-08003-102.
    (2) For MRH pilots with less than 900 hours TIS, prior to
accumulating 1,500 hours TIS, replace the MRH pilot, P/N 76103-
08003-101, with a MRH pilot, P/N 76103-08003-102.
    (3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install an MRH
pilot, P/N 76103-08003-101, on any helicopter.

(g) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits will not be issued.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Nicholas Faust,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(i) Additional Information

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support,
mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT 06614; telephone
(800) 562-4409; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review the service information at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

(j) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220: Main Rotor
Head.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
November 10, 2005 (70 FR 61721, October 26, 2005).
    (i) Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Alert Service Bulletin No. 76-
65-62, dated December 14, 2004.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) For the service information identified in this AD, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical
Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT 06614;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at
http://www.sikorsky.com.
    (5) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) 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 Fort Worth, Texas, on April 11, 2014.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-08849 Filed 4-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Report on Underground Injection Control Program

Burden Reduction Efforts

Introduction

EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) is requesting
OMB approval to renew the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Information Collection Request (ICR) to allow the continued collection
of information under the UIC Program.

In its “Terms of Clearance” for the current ICR, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) asked OGWDW to report on its efforts to
reduce burden on owners and operators of injection wells.

The following report responds to OMB’s request and describes EPA’s
efforts to assess the burden on well operators associated with the UIC
Program’s requirements and the efforts to identify potential burden
reduction opportunities in the UIC Program.

UIC  Burden Estimates

There are approximately 38,768 owners and operators of UIC wells who
must collect information and periodically report to the State or EPA on
well activities. The total annual burden on owners and operators of
injection wells estimated in the approved ICR (EPA ICR number 0370.19;
January 18, 2005) is 1,122,522 hours.  EPA has revised these estimates
as part of the process of renewing the UIC ICR and expects the total
annual owner/operator burden between 2007 and 2010 to be approximately
840,985 hours.

EPA expects a net reduction in operator burden of 281,537 hours between
2007 and 2010. This reduction reflects a combination of programmatic
changes and adjustments to the UIC inventory, rather than changes in the
reporting forms or frequency of reporting.  Programmatic changes include
activities associated with the Revision to Federal UIC Requirements for
Class I Municipal Wells in Florida (“the Florida Rule”) and reduced
activity as a result of the 1999 Revisions to the Underground Injection
Control Regulations for Class V Injection Wells (“the Class V
Rule”).  In addition, the burden estimate is expected to change to
reflect adjustments to the inventory for Classes II and V.

Table 1 provides additional detail.

Table 1: Change in Annual Well Owner/Operator Burden

Between Approved and Renewal ICRs

Type of Change	Change (hours)	Reason for Change

Florida Rule

	1,472	Additional burden associated with compliance with 2005 Rule.
Operators of certain Class I municipal wells in Florida will apply to
modify their permits in order to be able to continue injecting.

Abatement of Class V Rule activities 	-71,669	The burden associated with
permitting and closure of motor vehicle waste disposal wells (MVWDWs)
and closure of large capacity cesspools is largely complete.  Most
activities in the 2007 to 2010 clearance period will be associated with
rule-required sampling by MVWDW operators who opted to apply for a
permit.

Inventory adjustments	-211,339	For Class V injection wells, the Agency
predicted an increase in the number of Class V wells during the 2004 to
2006 period because of the significant increase due to requirement to
locate and document large capacity cesspools and motor vehicle waste
disposal wells as part of the 1999 Class V Rule.  For the 2007 to 2010
period the Agency expects a decrease in these activities as most of the
wells subject to permitting and closure should have been identified.

For Class II injection wells during 2004 to 2006, the Agency predicted
an increase in Class II activities based on consultations with EPA
regions and states.  Based on consultations on activities between 2007
and 2010, some wells are expected to temporarily close and fewer permits
are likely to be received in the future.

Total Change	-281,536

Past Efforts to Address Operator Burden

 convened a burden reduction workgroup to analyze the data needs of the
UIC Program and identify possible ways to reduce burden.  The workgroup
consisted of representatives of 11 states and all 10 EPA regions (see
Table 2 below).

Table 2: 7520 Workgroup Members

EPA Regions

David Delaney; Region I

John Kushwara; Region II

Roger Reinhart and Maria Conicelli; Region III

Nancy Marsh and Frank Baker; Region IV

Valoria Robinson; Region V

Ray Leissner; Region VI

Kurt Hildebrandt; Region VII

Carol Bowden and Nathan Wiser; Region VIII

Gregg Olson and George Robin; Region IX

Grover Partee; Region X

EPA Headquarters

Richard Lawrence, Al Havinga, and Don Olson; OECA

James Curtin; OGC

Denny Cruz, (Workgroup Leader), Robyn Delehanty and Bruce Kobelski;
OGWDW	States

Lindsay Taliaferro; Ohio

Richard Ginn, Ben Knape, and Marty Barnes; Texas

Mike Stettner; California

Dave Watkins; West Virginia

Mark Slifka; Idaho

Richard Deuerling; Florida

Michel Phillips and Bur Filson; Illinois

Stan Belieu; Nebraska

George Hudak; Montana

Bob Lucht; Wyoming

Larry Fiddler; Oklahoma

, allowing electronic entry and transmission of data from primacy
agencies to EPA.

Current Efforts to Address Operator Burden

In 2006, in response to OMB requests, EPA stepped up its efforts to
investigate and assess possibilities for burden reduction.  EPA convened
a study group composed of representatives from EPA headquarters and
Regions to assess whether burden could be further reduced. This study
group continues to evaluate burden reduction possibilities and complete
recommendations will be made available in late 2007.  A discussion of
the areas this group is examining follows.

Combining/Revising the Reporting Forms

It may be possible to   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 combine several of the 7520
reporting forms into a single multi-purpose form.  These forms include
the Completion forms (7520-9 and 7520-10), the Well Rework form
(7520-12), and the Plugging and Abandonment Plan (7520-14).  EPA is
evaluating whether combining the forms would result in any burden
reduction.

Reducing Frequency of Reporting

It may be possible to reduce reporting burden by reducing reporting
frequency.  The study group found that monitoring and testing had a
large number of respondents   These activities account for nearly half
of the total operator burden.  We have examined these areas for possible
burden reduction and have some areas to follow-up on whether burden can
be reduced.  As a possible next step, we could talk with states that run
the UIC programs and the regulated community.

  Table 3 summarizes the percent of total burden by activity.

Table 3:  Annual Injection Well Operator Burden

(by Activity Type)

	151,684	35% of total

Monitoring/ testing	493,093	46% of total

Reporting	123,125	12% of total

Recordkeeping	59,360	6% of total

Well closure	13,396	1% of total

Other	184	0.02% of total

Total	840,842

Source: ICR burden tables, last revised October 24, 2006.

                 *This is a one-time activity

Eliminating Data Elements from the 7520 Forms

The study group discussed the potential for eliminating some of the
reporting elements on the 7520 forms submitted by well owners/operators.
 Although it is too early to tell the exact number of elements that
could be eliminated, the study group acknowledged that some elements
could be eliminated.  The study group believes it is necessary to
continue to require many of the existing data elements to ensure that
injection wells are sited, constructed, and operated in an
environmentally protective manner, however, it is working to refine a
list of the elements that could be eliminated. Attachment 1 summarizes
the analysis to date of the potential for eliminating data elements.

Additional Burden Reduction Options

Study group members made additional recommendations for burden
reduction.  The following is a description of these recommendations and
associated activities.

Maintain and transfer all operator data electronically.  Electronic
reporting of routinely-collected data would eliminate the need to
collect, record on paper, and submit information to the permitting
authority.  A first step toward this goal is developing a database for
transferring UIC data from regions and states to EPA Headquarters.
Headquarters is currently developing a national UIC database (with plans
to deploy it in 2007).  Following this, it may be possible to provide
well operators the option to report some information electronically.
Headquarters estimates the database will reduce primacy agency burden.
It is likely that electronic reporting may offer significant burden
savings to those operators with electronic data transfer capabilities as
well.

Create an electronic permitting system.  Electronic submission of permit
application data could streamline the application review process.  This
option needs to be further explored.  EPA must consider the states’
ability to receive all of the required permit application attachments
electronically (e.g., well logs and schematics), whether some
information could be sent electronically, and the actual burden
reduction relative to the cost of setting up such a system (the number
of permit applications received each year by many states is limited and
not all applicants would be able to use an electronic system).

Allow electronic entry of inventory information.  Operators that do not
need to apply for a permit must submit basic inventory information about
their wells to the permitting authority using the Injection Well
Inventory form (7520-16) or an equivalent.  A web-based data entry
system could reduce burden to operators, especially those that submit
multiple inventory forms for similar wells.  (Regions and primacy
agencies would benefit as well, since this would eliminate data entry
from paper forms).  EPA plans to enable web site entry of inventory
information in 2007.  States are likely to be the first to use this
technology.  Further analysis is needed to assess how web-entered data
will be exported to other databases (e.g., state databases) as needed.

What Else Should the Agency Consider?

Where possible, examine whether operators submitting paperwork to DI
programs could responsibly retain more of their reporting paperwork at
their facilities and be made responsible for assuring that it is
accurate, complete and available, at all times for inspection by UIC
agencies.  OGWDW recognizes that some of state regulatory requirements
could be more stringent, making the implementation of some burden
reduction practices less likely.

Attachment 1: Study Group Evaluation of Potential to Eliminate 7520
Form Elements

Element

(Form number)	Members recommending  Potential Elimination

FINDS number

	10

Existing EPA permits

	9

Ownership/ private, federal, other

	6

Formation testing program

	5

Injection procedures

	5

Changes in injection fluid

	5

Plans for well failure

	5

Stimulation program

	4

Corrective action plan

	3

Monitoring program

	3

Plugging and abandonment

	1

Elements on Form 7520-7

	Non-lat/long locational data

	7

Name and address of permittee

	2

All of form 7520-8 – monitoring information

	Elements on Form 7520-9

	Description of surface equipment

	7

Monitoring system

	3

Well design and construction

	2

As-built diagrammatic sketch

	1

Date drilling completed

	6

Injection zone stimulation

	4

Lease name

	3

Wire line logs, list each type

	3

Schematic or other drawing of surface & subsurface construction

	2

Status of corrective action on defective wells in the area of review

	2

Hole

	1

Monthly monitoring information

	3

Method of emplacement of cement plugs

	2

Open hole/or perforated intervals and intervals where casing will be
varied 	1

Transaction type

	6

  The UIC Program ICR estimates the burden to primacy states as well;
however, that burden is not included in the estimate of operator burden
reduction noted above.

Page   PAGE  1

Please verify date

Please verify

Please add the names of the forms

This was deleted to avoid having to go back and justify why each element
is needed and the debate that might occur.

We may want to specify in a footnote that this is one time reporting, if
it is the only example.

Not sure the value added of this column.


[Federal Register: February 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 7728-7729]
[DOCID:fr11fe08-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12949-000]

Arkansas River Hydro 3, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

February 4, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12949-000.
    c. Date filed: August 14, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Arkansas River Hydro 3, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Lock and Dam 3 Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Arkansas River in Lincoln County, Arkansas. It would
use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Lock and Dam 3.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent L. Smith, COO, Symbiotics, LLC,
P.O. Box 535, Rigby, ID 83442,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12949-000) on
any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Lock and Dam 3 and operated in a run-of-
river mode would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse and switchyard; (2)
four turbine/generator units with a combined installed capacity of 100
megawatts; (3) a new 2.6-mile-long above ground 69-kilovolt
transmission line extending from the switchyard to an interconnection
point with the local utility's distribution system; and (4) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed Lock and Dam 3 Project would have an
average annual generation of 300 gigawatt-hours.
    l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item h above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the

particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-2419 Filed 2-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69630-69631]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28199]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1131]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; New Animal Drug Applications and Supporting
Regulations, and Form FDA 356V

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on paperwork associated with
applications for new animal drugs.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by January 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PIFO, Rm.
410B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Presubmission Conferences, New Animal Drug Applications and Supporting
Regulations and Guidance 152, and Form FDA 356V--21 CFR 514.5,
514.1, 514.4, and 514.8 (OMB Control Number 0910-0032)--Extension

    Under section 512(b)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(b)(3)), any person intending to file a
new animal drug application (NADA) or supplemental NADA or a request
for an investigational exemption under section 512(j) of the FD&C Act
is entitled to one or more conferences with FDA to reach an agreement
acceptable to FDA establishing a submission or investigational
requirement. FDA and industry have found that these meetings have
increased the efficiency of the drug development and drug review
processes.
    Section 514.5 of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations
describes the procedures for requesting, conducting, and documenting
presubmission conferences. Section 514.5(b) describes the information
that must be included in a letter submitted by a potential applicant
requesting a presubmission conference, including a proposed agenda and
a list of expected participants. Section 514.5(d) describes the
information that must be provided by the potential applicant to FDA at
least 30 days prior to a presubmission conference. This information
includes a detailed agenda, a copy of any materials to be presented at
the conference, a list of proposed indications and, if available, a
copy of the proposed labeling for the product under consideration, and
a copy of any background material that provides scientific rationale to
support the potential applicant's position on issues listed in the
agenda for the conference. Section 514.5(f) discusses the content of
the memorandum of conference that will be prepared by FDA and gives the
potential applicant an opportunity to seek correction to or
clarification of the memorandum.
    Under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act, any person may file a NADA
seeking approval to legally market a new animal drug. Section 512(b)(1)
sets forth the information required to be submitted in a NADA. FDA
allows applicants to submit a complete NADA or to submit information in
support of a NADA for phased review followed by submission of an
administrative NADA when FDA finds all the applicable technical
sections are complete.
    Section 514.1 of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations
interprets section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act and further describes the
information that must be submitted as part of a NADA and the manner and
form in which the NADA must be assembled and submitted. The application
must include safety and effectiveness data, proposed labeling, product
manufacturing information, and where necessary, complete information on
food safety (including microbial food safety) and any methods used to
determine residues of drug chemicals in edible tissue from food
producing animals. Guidance 152 outlines a risk assessment
approach for evaluating the microbial food safety of antimicrobial new
animal drugs. FDA requests that an applicant accompany NADAs,
supplemental NADAs, and requests for phased review of data to support
NADAs, with the Form FDA 356V to ensure efficient and accurate
processing of information to support new animal drug approval.
    FDA estimates the burden of the collections of information as
follows:

                              Table 1--NADAs: Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of
  21 CFR Section/FDA Form No.      Number of     responses per   Total  annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                  respondents     respondent       responses      per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
514.5(b), (d), and (f)                     169            0.41             69                50          3,450
 Requesting presubmission
 conferences..................
514.1 and 514.6 Applications               169            0.07             12               212          2,544
 and amended applications.....
514.8(b) Manufacturing changes             169            2.22            375                35         13,125
 to an approved application...
514.8(c)(1) Labeling and other             169            0.06             10                71            710
 changes to an approved
 application..................
514.8(c)(2) and (3) Labeling               169            0.72            121                20          2,420
 and other changes to an
 approved application.........
514.11 Submission of data,                 169            0.08             14                 1             14
 studies and other information
558.5(i) Requirements for                  169            0.01              1.7               5              8.5
 liquid medicated feed........
514.1(b)(8) and 514.8(c)(1)                169            0.15             25                90          2,250
 \2\ Evidence to establish
 safety and effectiveness.....
FDA Form 356V.................             169            4.37            739                 5          3,695
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  ..............  ..............  ...............  ..............         28,217
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.
\2\ NADAs and supplements regarding antimicrobial animal drugs that use a recommended approach to assessing
  antimicrobial concerns as part of the overall preapproval safety evaluation.

    Based on the number of sponsors subject to animal drug user fees,
FDA estimates that there was an average of 169 annual respondents
during the 5 fiscal years, from October 1, 2008 through September 30,
2012, on which these estimates were made. We use this estimate
consistently throughout the table and calculate the ``total annual
responses'' by multiplying the number of responses per respondent by
number of respondents.

    Dated: November 15, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-28199 Filed 11-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29214-29216]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11812]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0218; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-003-AD;
Amendment 39-17051; AD 2012-10-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Models 58 and G58 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by installation of oversized clamps on fuel vapor return and/
or fuel vent lines in the outboard sections of the left and right
wings. This AD requires inspecting for oversized or deformed fuel hose
clamps and replacing as necessary. We are issuing this AD to correct
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 21, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of June 21,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, B091-A04, 10511 E. Central Ave.,
Wichita, Kansas 67206; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Internet:
http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/customer_support/technical_and_field_support/. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (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: Thomas Teplik, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room
100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2012 (77 FR
12757). That NPRM proposed to require

inspection for oversized or deformed fuel hose clamps and replacement
as necessary because of reports we have received of installation of
oversized clamps on fuel vapor return and/or fuel vent lines in the
outboard sections of the left and right wings. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in leakage of fuel or vapor in areas where
electrical wiring and other potential ignition sources are present,
which could lead to an inflight fire.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 12757, March 2, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 12757, March 2, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 244 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
            Action                Labor cost               Parts cost               product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defueling, inspection of the   3.5 work-hours x  Not applicable...............         $297.50          $72,590
 fuel hose clamps, and          $85 per hour =
 refueling.                     $297.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                Action                                Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of fuel hose clamps (Cost   3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255....             $20             $275
 represents replacement of a maximum
 of 20 clamps depending on airplane
 configuration).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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):

2012-10-02 Hawker Beechcraft Corporation: Amendment 39-17051; Docket
No. FAA-2012-0218; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-003-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 21, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to the following Hawker Beechcraft
Corporation airplanes that are certificated in any category:
    (i) Model 58, serial numbers TH-1931 through TH-2124, and

    (ii) Model G58, serial numbers TH-2125 through TH-2281, TH-2283,
and TH-2284.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 28; fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by installation of oversized clamps on fuel
vapor return and/or fuel vent lines in the outboard sections of the
left and right wings. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

    Within the next 50 hours time-in-service after June 21, 2012
(the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 calendar months
after June 21, 2012 (the effective date of this AD), whichever
occurs first, inspect the fuel hose clamps for oversized or deformed
clamps following Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB
28-4039, Revision 1, dated October 2011.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:  If you have a scheduled
inspection before the compliance time of this AD, the FAA recommends
you comply with this AD at that time.

(h) Replacement

    If any oversized or deformed clamps are found during the
inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD, before further
flight, replace the clamps following Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory
Service Bulletin No. SB 28-4039, Revision 1, dated October 2011.

 (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) 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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Thomas Teplik,
Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin
No. SB 28-4039, Revision 1, dated October 2011, to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference
(IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, B091-A04, 10511 E. Central Ave.,
Wichita, Kansas 67206; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Internet:
http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/customer_support/technical_and_field_support/.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the 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 Kansas City, Missouri, on May 9, 2012.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-11812 Filed 5-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


" Hunt, Tim" < Tim_ Hunt@ afandpa To: Mary Kissell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Jim . org> Eddinger/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: " Rob Kaufmann ( rckaufma@ gapac. com)" 12/ 22/ 2003 01: 40 PM < rckaufma@ gapac. com>, Victor Dallons < victor. dallons@ weyerhaeuser. com>, ' Dave Harvey' < dave. harvey@ lpcorp. com>, " Jim Jackson ( jimjackson@ bc. com)" < jimjackson@ bc. com> Subject: MACT Overlap Mary Tom and Jim,

As you know, we have been concerned about certain units at wood products facilities like thermal oil heaters being regulated twice under both Plywood MACT and Boiler MACT ( see AF& PA March comments). Here is a brief paper that outlines what we believe is a straightforward solution to this concern.

We would be glad to talk about it further.

Happy Holidays,

<< Boiler PWCP MACT Overlap final 12 22 03. doc>>

Timothy Hunt Senior Director, Air Quality Programs American Forest and Paper Association Suite 800 1111 19th St., NW Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202 463 2588 fax: 202 463 2423 Tim_ Hunt@ afandpa. org ( See attached file: Boiler PWCP MACT Overlap final 12 22 03. doc) 12/ 22/ 03 PWCP and Boiler MACT Overlap Issues Issue:

Some facilities incorporate small steam generators/ thermal oil heaters as part of an integrally designed combustion system with the primary purpose of providing heat for direct fired dryers. Air pollution control devices for the system are usually located after the dryers. These indirect heat exchangers provide steam or thermal oil for board press heating and, in some limited instances, log thawing vats/ ponds. The indirect heating function typically accounts for less than 25% of the total heat capacity of the combustion system when operating at full capacity. When the direct fired dryers go down due to malfunctions, maintenance, or other reasons, emissions from the limited continued operation of the indirect heat exchangers may result in combustion related emissions being directly vented to the atmosphere, with no emission control beyond that provided by the system's combustion controls. Unless explicitly addressed in the Plywood and Composite Wood Products ( PCWP) MACT rule, the Boiler/ Process Heater MACT provisions could apply when these indirect heat exchanger emissions bypass the directheated dryers during dryer outages. Industry is concerned that expensive emission control equipment would be required by the Boiler/ Process Heater MACT rule that would not be needed most of the unit's operating time. EPA is concerned that mills may exhaust uncontrolled boiler/ process heater emissions for an inordinate amount of time under the conditions described above.

Discussion:

In a number of instances, the combustion equipment providing heat input to the subject indirect heat exchangers is fully integrated into the dryer's overall direct fired heat source. The units at issue are biomass fired units. These units are among those reviewed as part of the MACT floor determination process for the PCWP MACT. A portion of the dryer heat system's thermal output may be passed through a water or hot oil heat exchanger for use elsewhere, typically as a heat source for presses. Under normal operation, the portion of the combustion gas directed through the heat exchangers is passed directly through to the direct fired dryer along with the rest of the combustion gas from the integrated heat source. As noted by EPA, however, the dryers integrated with these units do indeed need to be taken off line from time to time, usually due to some sort of malfunction ( overheating, a fire within the dryer or piping, temperature/ moisture probe failure, conveyor problems, etc.) that requires prompt ( in many cases, instantaneous) action and/ or maintenance to avoid severe equipment damage and/ or employee hazard.

Also, during a mill shutdown, some indirect heat continues to be needed in the mill. The presses may be operated for a short period after the dryers go down in order to empty the dry flake storage bins ( OSB, PB). When the dryer is shut down, ( and subsequently, when it is in start up mode), there still is a need to keep the associated 1 presses operating at a minimum idle heat level. This is necessary to avoid thermal stress damage ( warping, leaks) to the press and it's associated heating system. In addition, at a limited number of OSB plants located in cold weather areas, heat is needed in the log thawing vats/ ponds to keep them from freezing, and is also needed during start up to bring the log vats/ ponds up to temperature. In addition, the combustion devices are kept in idle mode even when no heat is needed to avoid thermal stresses to the combustion unit resulting from cooling and re heating. In these cases, thermal oil continues to circulate in the system, and the oil heat is dumped via a heat exchanger to the atmosphere.

When events require diversion of combustion gas away from the dryer system, the combustion system is throttled back. Since storage of dryer product must be kept small for fire and explosion prevention considerations, the pressing operation can only operate for a short time with the dryers out of service. For this reason, the combustion source associated with the dryer/ indirect heat exchanger will be quickly throttled back and operated at a substantially lower than normal load to maintain temperature on the press in an idle mode. Emissions will be reduced accordingly. In addition, when routine maintenance is performed on the boiler/ indirect heat exchanger or presses in addition to the dryers, the heat exchanger units will be shut down as part of normal operating procedures.

The events where the indirect heat exchangers will be kept running, and thus vented directly to the atmosphere are described in more detail as follows. Many mills take an 8 hour maintenance down day every 2 weeks. There are also longer periodic outages for other maintenance and repairs as well as various process emergencies. The indirect heat exchangers may be operated during these periods if there is no press and/ or log vat maintenance underway. AF& PA supplied EPA with considerable dryer downtime with respect to our comments on maintenance downtime allowances. During these documented downtime periods, the thermal oil heaters or boilers are operated at a reduced heat input and output rate, typically at less than 20% of their normal heat input. In more unusual circumstances, such as after a more significant dryer fire, the shutdown may last a day or longer, but the plant cannot run long in this mode. Almost immediately, the heat exchanger firing levels and associated emissions will be minimized during these periods, as only a small amount of thermal energy will be needed to keep the presses in a heated idle mode. Due to NSPS considerations, some plants have the ability to switch over to natural gas combustion to maintain the minimal heat loads necessary to keep the presses in idle mode during dryer outages, but this practice will not be applicable to all facilities, nor does the switch occur instantaneously. However, for facilities with unlimited access to natural gas, the ability to switch fuels would be an acceptable work practice to minimize emissions during dryer outages.

Suggested Resolution:

The pending PCWP MACT rule should address this issue by ( 1) directing that indirect heat exchangers that normally exhaust to direct   fired dryers be included in the 2 PWPC MACT source definition and be specifically excluded from the Boiler MACT source definition, and ( 2) that emissions from these indirect heat exchangers be addressed either by procedures contained in the facilities' required SSM plan or as a permitted alternate operating mode. Addressing emissions during these events via the facility's SSM plan is appropriate since most atmospheric venting of the indirect heat exchanger exhaust is associated with dryer malfunctions, the need for an orderly shut down of the related heat source, the need to maintain a minimum level of heat to protect the press, and/ or the need to start the dryer( s) up slowly thereafter. Addressing the emissions under an alternative operating mode may be appropriate for longer planned dryer outages where some heat is needed to maintain other mill operations such as heating buildings or keeping log ponds from freezing. Since these indirect heat exchangers are part of an integrated combustion system whose primary function is to provide heat to direct fired dryers, they should not be addressed under the pending Boiler/ Process Heater MACT rule in view of that rule's long standing determination that direct fired process units are properly addressed in the respective MACT rules for their industrial category and in view the fact that these specific units are included in the " MACT Floor" for the PCWP MACT.

Dryer outage events, either planned or unplanned, could be incorporated into SSM plans by considering them to be dryer shutdowns. The General Provisions define shutdowns as a cessation of a source or any portion of an affected source for any purpose. Cessation is a pause in operation. The length of time a cessation occurs is not defined by the rule. Under this interpretation of the rule, a facility would have to decide how long it could operate a process heater at reduced output before shutting it down completely in order to comply with the general duty provision to minimize emissions, and include the decision process in the SSM plan.

The other approach would be to incorporate the dryer bypass into the facility Title V permit as an alternative operating scenario subject to complete permit authority and public review. Using the alternative operating scenario approach would allow facilities to tailor their operating approach to their unique operating and physical plant situations. Based on the data already provided to EPA, we have concluded that the MACT floor for these events is no control, and is properly evaluated under the PWCP MACT rule.

AF& PA requests that the PWCP MACT rule specify that indirect heat exchanger emissions that are normally routed to direct fired dryers be subject to the PCWP MACT requirements. Specific language should be included in the PCWP MACT preamble directing that venting of these units is part of the MACT floor and should be addressed under the facility's SSM Plan or under approved Title V alternative operating scenarios. This coverage should also be recognized in the preamble to the Boiler/ Process Heater MACT to avoid confusion over applicability.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77448-77449]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30573]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9904-33-OAR]

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC): Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces upcoming
public meetings of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC). The
EPA established the CAAAC on November 19, 1990, to provide independent
advice and counsel to EPA on policy issues associated with
implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The Committee advises on
economic, environmental, technical, scientific and enforcement policy
issues.

DATES AND ADDRESSES: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Section 10(a)(2),
notice is hereby given that the CAAAC will hold its next face-to-face
meeting on April 3, 2014, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the EPA
Conference Facility at Potomac Yard, One Potomac Yard, Potomac Yard
South, 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202. Non-EPA attendees will
need to present photo identification for entrance into the building.
Seating will be available on a first come, first served

basis. The Permits, New Source Review and Toxics Subcommittee will meet
at the same location on April 2, 2014, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Inspection of Committee Documents: The Committee agenda and any
documents prepared for these meetings will be publicly available on the
CAAAC Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/ prior to the meeting.
Thereafter, these documents, together with CAAAC meeting minutes, will
also be available on the CAAAC Web site or by contacting the Office of
Air and Radiation Docket and requesting information under docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2004-0075. The Docket office can be reached by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information about the CAAAC,
please contact Jeneva Craig, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Office
of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information on the Permits, New
Source Review and Toxics subcommittee, please contact Alan Rush at
(202) 564-1658 or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Additional Information on these
meetings, CAAAC, and its Subcommittees can be found on the CAAAC Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/.
    For information on access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Jeneva Craig at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>preferably at least 10 days prior to the meetings
to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated December 11, 2013.
Jeneva Craig,
Designated Federal Officer, Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, Office of
Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2013-30573 Filed 12-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77671-77672]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30610]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0353; FRL-9904-25-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal
Combustion Engines (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for Stationary Spark
Ignition Internal Combustion Engines (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ)
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2227.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0610), to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through April 30, 2014. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register (78 FR 35023) on June 11, 2013, during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 23,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0353, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ. Owners or
operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-time-only report
of any physical or operational changes, initial performance tests, and
periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports
are required semiannually at a minimum.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of stationary
spark ignition internal combustion engines.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart JJJJ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 17,811 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially and occasionally.

    Total estimated burden: 23,286 hours (per year). ``Burden'' is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $4,641,926 (per year), which includes
$2,364,136 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The increase in burden from the most
recently approved ICR is due to adjustments in the number of new or
modified sources and updated labor rates. This ICR accounts for the
industry growth since the last ICR renewal period and uses updated
labor rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate burden
costs.
    Additionally, the capital/startup and O&M costs as calculated in
section 6(b)(iii) have been corrected to reflect initial performance
tests as a one-time capital/startup costs, rather than ongoing O&M
costs. This results in an increase in capital costs, and a
corresponding decrease in O&M costs.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-30610 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P