[Federal Register: February 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 35)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9502-9504]
[DOCID:fr21fe08-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0078; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-40-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Series Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    High pressure (HP) turbine discs recently inspected in
accordance with the Engine Manual have exhibited cracks in the disc
rim. The discs have failed to meet the inspection acceptance
criteria and have been returned to Rolls-Royce for engineering
investigation. This investigation has concluded that the cracks have
resulted from scores within the cooling air holes in the disc rim
that could have been introduced during new part

manufacture or during overhaul of the disc. The engineering
investigation has concluded that if this cracking was undetected
then it could result in uncontained disc failure and a potential
unsafe condition for the aircraft.

We are proposing this AD to prevent uncontained disc failure, possibly
resulting in damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<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 Operations office

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-0078; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NE-40-AD'' in the subject line of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed
AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
2006-0180, dated June 26, 2006, for RB211-524 series engines, AD 2006-
0181, dated June 26, 2006, for RB211-22B engines, and AD 2006-0182,
dated June 28, 2006, for RB211-535 series engines, to correct the same
unsafe condition for the specified products. The EASA ADs state:

    HPT discs recently inspected in accordance with the Engine
Manual have exhibited cracks in the disc rim. The discs have failed
to meet the inspection acceptance criteria and have been returned to
Rolls-Royce for engineering investigation. This investigation has
concluded that the cracks have resulted from scores within the
cooling air holes in the disc rim that could have been introduced
during new part manufacture or during overhaul of the disc. The
engineering investigation has concluded that if this cracking was
undetected then it could result in uncontained disc failure and a
potential unsafe condition for the aircraft.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI ADs in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Rolls-Royce plc has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-
AE969, dated May 9, 2006. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI ADs.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    These products have been approved by the United Kingdom (UK), and
are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with the UK, they have notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI ADs, and service information referenced
above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent
information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to
exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This
proposed AD would require initial and repetitive eddy current
inspections of HP turbine discs.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 506 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $161,920.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator,

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

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

Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA-2007-0078; Directorate Identifier
2007-NE-40-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 24, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) models RB211-535E4
series, RB211-535E4-B series, RB211-535E4-C series, RB211-535C
series, RB211-524 series, and RB211-22B series turbofan engines.
These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 747, 757,
and 767, Lockheed L-1011, and Tupulev Tu204 airplanes.

Reason

    (d) European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2006-0180, dated June 26,
2006, AD 2006-0181, dated June 26, 2006, and AD 2006-0182, dated
June 28, 2006, state:

    High pressure (HP) turbine discs recently inspected in
accordance with the Engine Manual have exhibited cracks in the disc
rim. The discs have failed to meet the inspection acceptance
criteria and have been returned to Rolls-Royce for engineering
investigation. This investigation has concluded that the cracks have
resulted from scores within the cooling air holes in the disc rim
that could have been introduced during new part manufacture or
during overhaul of the disc. The engineering investigation has
concluded that if this cracking was undetected then it could result
in uncontained disc failure and a potential unsafe condition for the
aircraft.

We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained disc failure, possibly
resulting in damage to the airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, perform an initial eddy current
inspection (ECI) of the HP turbine disc air cooling holes.
Information on ECI of HP turbine disc cooling holes can be found in
RR Engine Overhaul Process Manual No. TSD594-J, Overhaul Process
223, dated May 1, 2001.

Initial Inspection for RB211-22B Series Turbofan Engines

    (f) For RB211-22B series turbofan engines:
    (1) If an installed HP turbine disc has more than 9,500 cycles-
since-new (CSN) on the effective date of this AD, then ECI the HP
turbine disc by whichever is the soonest of the following
conditions:
    (i) Within 500 cycles from the effective date of this AD; or
    (ii) At the next shop visit where the HP turbine rotor is
removed from the combustor outer casing.
    (2) If an installed HP turbine disc has 9,500 or fewer CSN on
the effective date of this AD, then ECI the HP turbine disc by
whichever is the soonest of the following conditions:
    (i) Before reaching 10,000 CSN; or
    (ii) At the next shop visit where the HP turbine rotor is
removed from the combustor outer casing and the HP turbine disc has
more than 2,750 CSN.
    (3) For HP turbine rotors at shop visit and already removed from
the combustor outer casing on the effective date of this AD, ECI the
HP turbine disc before reinstalling the HP turbine rotor in the
combustor outer casing.

Initial Inspection of RB211-524 Series Turbofan Engines

    (g) For RB211-524 series turbofan engines, ECI the HP turbine
disc at the soonest of the following after the effective date of the
AD:
    (1) At the next shop visit where the HP turbine blades are
removed from the HP turbine disc and when the HP turbine disc has
more than 2,750 CSN.
    (2) For HP turbine rotors at shop visit and the HP turbine
blades are removed from the HP turbine disc and the HP turbine disc
life is more than 2,750 CSN, ECI the turbine disc before
reinstalling the HP turbine blades.

Initial Inspection of RB211-535C, -535E4, -535E4-B, and -535E4-C Series
Turbofan Engines

    (h) For RB211-535C, -535E4, -535E4-B, and -535E4-C series
turbofan engines:
    (1) If an installed HP turbine disc has 17,500 or fewer CSN on
the effective date of this AD, then ECI the HP turbine disc by
whichever is the soonest of the following conditions:
    (i) Before reaching 18,000 CSN; or
    (ii) At the next shop visit where the HP turbine rotor is
removed from the combustor outer casing, and the HP turbine disc has
5,000 or more CSN.
    (iii) For HP turbine rotors at shop visit on the effective date
of this AD that are removed from the combustor outer casing, and
that have HP turbine discs with 5,000 or more CSN, ECI the HP
turbine disc before reinstalling the HP turbine rotor in the
combustor outer casing.
    (2) If an installed HP turbine disc has more than 17,500 CSN on
the effective date of this AD, then ECI the HP turbine disc by
whichever is the soonest of the following conditions:
    (i) Within 500 cycles from the effective date of this AD; or
    (ii) At the next shop visit where the HP turbine rotor is
removed from the combustor outer casing.
    (iii) For HP turbine rotors at shop visit on the effective date
of this AD that are removed from the combustor outer casing, ECI the
HP turbine disc before reinstalling the HP turbine rotor in the
combustor outer casing.

HP Turbine Disc Permanent Etching

    (i) On successful completion of the initial inspection only,
permanently etch NMSB 72-AE969 onto the HP turbine disc, adjacent to
the part number.

Repetitive ECI Inspections

    (j) Thereafter, perform repetitive ECIs at every shop visit
where the HP turbine blades are removed from the HP turbine disc.
Information on ECI of HP turbine disc air cooling holes can be found
in RR Engine Overhaul Process Manual No. TSD594-J, Overhaul Process
223, dated May 1, 2001.
    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.

Previous Credit

    (l) Initial inspections done before the effective date of this
AD on HP turbine discs with a disc life above the minimum threshold
(5,000 CSN for the RB211-535 engines and 2,750 CSN for both the
RB211-524 and the RB211-22B engines) at the time of inspection, per
paragraph 1.C.(2) of RR Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AE969,
comply with the initial inspection requirements specified in this
AD.

Related Information

    (m) Refer to EASA AD 2006-0180, dated June 26, 2006, AD 2006-
0181, dated June 26, 2006, and AD 2006-0182, dated June 28, 2006,
for related information.
    (n) Contact Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information about
this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 13, 2008.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-3192 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 9463-9465]
[DOCID:fr04mr09-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59453; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. To Adopt a
Policy Relating to its Treatment of Trade Reports That it Determines To
Be Inconsistent With the Prevailing Market

February 25, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on February 9, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal eligible for immediate effectiveness
pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 19b-4(f)(6). The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposal from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange''), through its wholly-owned
subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities''), proposes
to adopt a policy relating to its treatment of trade reports that it
determines to be inconsistent with the prevailing market.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Trades in listed securities occasionally occur at prices that
deviate significantly from prevailing market prices and those trades
sometimes establish a high, low or last sale price for a security that
does not reflect the true market for the security.
    The Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') offers each Participant
in the CTA Plan the discretion to append an indicator (an ``Aberrant
Report Indicator'') to a trade report to indicate that the market
believes that the trade price in a trade executed on that market does
not accurately reflect the prevailing market for the security. The CTA
recommends that data recipients should exclude the price of any trade
to which the Aberrant Report Indicator has been appended from any
calculation of the high, low and last sale prices for the security.
    During the course of surveillance by the Exchange or as a result of
notification by another market, listed company or market participant,
the Exchange may become aware of trade prices that do not accurately
reflect the prevailing market for a security. In such a case, the
Exchange proposes to adopt as policies that it:
     May determine to append an Aberrant Report Indicator to
any trade report with respect to any trade executed on the Exchange
that the Exchange determines to be inconsistent with the prevailing
market; and
     Shall discourage vendors and other data recipients from
using prices to which the Exchange has appended the Aberrant Report
Indicator in any calculation of the high, low or last sale price of a
security.
    The Exchange will urge vendors to disclose the exclusion from high,
low or last sale price data of any aberrant trades excluded from high,
low or last sale price information they disseminate and to provide to
data users an explanation of the parameters used in the Exchange's
aberrant trade policy. Upon initial adoption of the Aberrant Report
Indicator, the Exchange will also

contact all of its listed companies to explain the aberrant trade
policy and will notify users of the information that these are still
valid trades. The Exchange will inform the affected listed company each
time the Exchange or another market appends the Aberrant Report
Indicator to a trade in an NYSE Arca listed stock and will remind the
users of the information that these are still valid trades in that they
were executed and not unwound as in the case of a clearly erroneous
trade.
    While the CTA disseminates its own calculations of high, low and
last sale prices, vendors and other data recipients--and not the
Exchange--frequently determine their own methodology by which they wish
to calculate high, low and last sale prices. Therefore, the Exchange
shall endeavor to explain to those vendors and other data recipients
the deleterious effects that can result from including in the
calculations a trade to which the Aberrant Report Indicator has been
appended.
    In making the determination to append the Aberrant Report
Indicator, the Exchange shall consider all factors related to a trade,
including, but not limited to, the following:
     Material news released for the security;
     Suspicious trading activity;
     System malfunctions or disruptions;
     Locked or crossed markets;
     A recent trading halt or resumption of trading in the
security;
     Whether the security is in its initial public offering;
     Volume and volatility for the security;
     Whether the trade price represents a 52-week high or low
for the security;
     Whether the trade price deviates significantly from recent
trading patterns in the security;
     Whether the trade price reflects a stock-split,
reorganization or other corporate action;
     The validity of consolidated tape trades and quotes in
comparison to national best bids and offers; and
     The general volatility of market conditions.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes that its policy shall be to
consult with the listing exchange (if the Exchange is not the listing
exchange) and with other markets (in the case of executions that take
place across multiple markets) and to seek a consensus as to whether
the trade price is consistent with the prevailing market for the
security.
    In determining whether trade prices are inconsistent with the
prevailing market, the Exchange proposes that Exchange policy shall be
to follow the following general guidelines: The Exchange will determine
whether a trade price does not reflect the prevailing market for a
security if the trade occurs during regular trading hours (i.e., 9:30
a.m. to 4 p.m.) and occurs at a price that deviates from the
``Reference Price'' by an amount that meets or exceeds the following
thresholds:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Trade price                      Numerical threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between $0 and $15.00..................  Seven Percent.
Between $15.01 and $50.00..............  Five Percent.
In excess of $50.00....................  Three Percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``Reference Price'' refers to (a) if the primary market for the
security is open at the time of the trade, the national best bid or
offer for the security, or (b) if the primary market for the security
is not open at the time of the trade, the first executable quote or
print for the security on the primary market after execution of the
trade in question. However, if the circumstances suggest that a
different Reference Price would be more appropriate, the Exchange will
use the different Reference Price. For instance, if the national best
bid and offer for the security are so wide apart as to fail to reflect
the market for the security, the Exchange might use as the Reference
Price a trade price or best bid or offer that was available prior to
the trade in question.
    If the Exchange determines that a trade price does not reflect the
prevailing market for a security and the trade represented the last
sale of the security on the Exchange during a trading session, the
Exchange may also determine to remove that trade's designation as the
last sale. The Exchange may do so either on the day of the trade or at
a later date, so as to provide reasonable time for the Exchange to
conduct due diligence regarding the trade, including the consideration
of input from markets and other market participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 \3\ of the Act in general and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \4\ in particular, in that it is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments, and to perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Aberrant Report Indicator is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest in that the Exchange
will seek to ensure a proper understanding of the Aberrant Report
Indicator among securities market participants by: (i) Urging vendors
to disclose the exclusion from high, low or last sale price data of any
aberrant trades excluded from high, low or last sale price information
they disseminate and to provide to data users an explanation of the
parameters used in the Exchange's aberrant trade policy; (ii) informing
the affected listed company each time the Exchange or another market
appends the Aberrant Report Indicator to a trade in an NYSE Arca listed
stock; and (iii) reminding the users of the information that these are
still valid trades in that they were executed and not unwound as in the
case of a clearly erroneous trade.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\6\ the Exchange has designated this proposal as one that
effects a change that: (A) Does not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (B) does not impose any
significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative for 30 days after the date of

filing.\7\ However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \8\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay and
designate the proposed rule change to become operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposal is substantially similar to a proposal previously
approved by the Commission.\9\ The Commission believes that the
Exchange's proposal to append an Aberrant Report Indicator to certain
trade reports is a reasonable means to alert investors and others that
the Exchange believes that the trade price for a trade executed in its
market does not accurately reflect the prevailing market for the
security. In addition, the Commission notes that the Exchange will use
objective numerical thresholds in determining whether a trade report is
eligible to have an Aberrant Trade Indicator appended to it. The
Commission further notes that the Exchange's appending the Aberrant
Trade Indicator to a trade report has no effect on the validity of the
underlying trade. Finally, waiving the 30-day operative delay will
allow the Exchange to apply the proposed change to future aberrant
trades immediately.\10\ Based on the above, the Commission designates
the proposal to become operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58736 (October 6,
2008), 73 FR 60380 (October 10, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-91).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the impact of the proposed rule on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-09. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-09 and should be submitted on or before
March 25, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-4561 Filed 3-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [ EPA HQ OAR 2004 0004, FRL ]

RIN 2060 AK16 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial Process Cooling Towers AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Final action.

SUMMARY: On September 8, 1994, we promulgated national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for industrial process cooling towers ( IPCT). The NESHAP prohibited the use of chromium based water treatment chemicals that are known or suspected to cause cancer or have a serious health or environmental effect.

Section 112( f)( 2) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) directs EPA to assess the risk remaining ( residual risk) after the application of NESHAP and to promulgate more stringent standards, if warranted, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or prevent adverse environmental effect. Also, section 112( d)( 6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise the NESHAP, as necessary at least every 8 years, taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. On October 24, 2005, based on the findings from our residual risk and 2 technology review, we proposed no further action to revise the NESHAP and requested public comment. Today's final action responds to the public comments received on the proposed action and amends EPA's final decision to amend the applicability section of the rule in response to public comments. The amendment provides that sources no longer using chromium based water treatment chemicals are not subject to this NESHAP.

DATES: This final action is effective on [ INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL ACTION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA HQ OAR 2004 0004. All documents in the docket are listed on the www. regulations. gov web site.

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i. e., confidential business information 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 www. regulations. gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA HQ OAR 2004 0004, EPA West Building, Room B 102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,

Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 3 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is ( 202) 566 1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the final action, contact Mr. Phil Mulrine, U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Metals and Minerals Group ( D205 01),

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: ( 919) 541 5289; fax number: ( 919) 541 5450; e mail address: mulrine. phil@ epa. gov. For questions on the residual risk analysis, contact Mr. Scott Jenkins, U. S. EPA,

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Sector Based Assessment Group ( C539 02), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: ( 919) 541 1167, fax number: ( 919)

541 0840, e mail address: jenkins. scott@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities affected by the NESHAP include:

Category NAICS Code* Examples of Regulated Entities Industry............. 324110 325181 325120 IPCT located at major sources, including petroleum refineries, 4 Federal/ State/ local/ tribal governments... 325131 325188 325191 325311 325312 325314 325320 325520 325920 325910 325182 325998 331111 331411 331419 327211 327213 327212 312221 312229 312229 326211 313311 313311 313312 chemical manufacturing plants, primary metals processing plants, glass manufacturing plants, tobacco products manufacturing plants, rubber products manufacturing plants, and textile finishing plants.

* North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the NESHAP. To determine whether your facility would be affected by the NESHAP, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 63.400( a) of subpart Q ( IPCT NESHAP). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. Phil Mulrine, listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 5 Worldwide Web ( WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's final action will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network ( TTN). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at: www. epa. gov/ ttn/ oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What did the industrial process cooling tower NESHAP accomplish? C. What were the conclusions of the residual risk assessment? D. What were the conclusions of the technology review? E. What was the proposed action? II. Today's Action A. What is today's final action? B. What comments were received on the proposed action? III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Congressional Review Act 6 I. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, after EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in the CAA, section 112( d) calls for us to promulgate national technology based emission standards for sources within those categories that emit or have the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year ( known as " major sources"),

as well as for certain " area sources" emitting less than those amounts. These technology based standards must reflect the maximum reductions of HAP achievable ( after considering cost, energy requirements, and non air health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) standards.

For area sources, CAA section 112( d)( 5) provides that,

in lieu of MACT, the Administrator may elect to promulgate standards or requirements which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices, and such standards are commonly referred to as generally available control technology standards. 7 EPA is then required to review these technology based standards and to revise them " as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies," no less frequently than every 8 years.

The second stage in standard setting is described in section 112( f) of the CAA. This provision requires that EPA prepare a Report to Congress describing, among other things,

methods of estimating risks posed by sources after implementation of the MACT standards, the public health significance of those risks, the means and costs of controlling them, actual health risks to persons in proximity to emitting sources, and recommendations as to legislation regarding such remaining risk. EPA prepared and submitted this report ( Residual Risk Report to Congress,

EPA 453/ R 99 001) in March 1999. The Congress did not act on any of the recommendations in the report, triggering the second stage of the standard setting process, the residual risk stage.

Section 112( f)( 2) requires us to determine for each section 112( d) source category whether the MACT standards protect public health with an ample margin of safety. If the MACT standards for a HAP " classified as a known,

probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed 8 to emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to less than 1 in 1 million," then EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the source category ( or subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. EPA must also adopt more stringent standards to prevent an adverse environmental effect ( defined in section 112( a)( 7) as " any significant and widespread adverse effect . . . to wildlife,

aquatic life, or natural resources . . .."), but must consider cost, energy, safety, and other relevant factors.

B. What did the IPCT NESHAP accomplish?

On September 8, 1994, we promulgated the IPCT NESHAP ( 59 FR 46350) and required existing sources to comply with the NESHAP by March 8, 1996.

Cooling towers are devices that are used to remove heat from a cooling fluid, typically water, by contacting the fluid with ambient air. The IPCT source category includes cooling towers that are used to remove heat that is produced as an input or output of chemical or industrial processes.

The IPCT source category also includes cooling towers that cool industrial processes in combination with heating,

ventilation, and air conditioning ( HVAC) systems. The IPCT NESHAP applies specifically to IPCT that use chromium based water treatment chemicals and are located at major sources of HAP emissions. Standards to control chromium emissions 9 from cooling towers that cool HVAC systems exclusively ( comfort cooling towers) were promulgated under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( 55 FR 222,

January 3, 1990).

The primary industries that use IPCT include petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, primary metals processing plants, glass manufacturing plants, rubber products manufacturing plants, tobacco products manufacturing plants, and textile manufacturing plants.

When the IPCT NESHAP were promulgated, we estimated that there were approximately 6,945 IPCT located at these plants nationwide, and that approximately 260 of these IPCT used chromium based water treatment chemicals. We estimated that the IPCT NESHAP would reduce emissions of chromium compounds from these facilities by 22.7 megagrams per year ( Mg/ yr) ( 25 tons per year ( tpy)) by prohibiting the use of chromiumbased water treatment chemicals in IPCT. In addition, we estimated that the NESHAP would prevent emissions of 1.6 Mg/ yr ( 1.8 tpy) of chromium compounds from the 870 new IPCT projected by the 5th year of the standards ( 1998).

When the NESHAP were promulgated, we had no information that indicated that HAP other than chromium compounds were emitted from IPCT. Consequently, we did not address emissions of other HAP in the IPCT NESHAP. 10 C. What were the conclusions of the residual risk assessment?

As required by section 112( f)( 2) of the CAA, we prepared a risk assessment to determine the residual risk posed by IPCT after implementation of the NESHAP. To evaluate the residual risk for the IPCT source category, we identified the HAP emitted from IPCT and, as a discretionary matter in this instance, estimated worst case emission rates for each of those HAP. These worst case emission rates were used, along with facility parameters representing an actual facility, to perform the risk assessment.

Because the IPCT NESHAP prohibits the use of chromiumbased water treatment chemicals in IPCT, we believe that chromium compound emissions from IPCT have been eliminated by the NESHAP. In assessing the residual risk for the source category, however, we also considered emissions of other HAP from IPCT.

In the absence of process leaks or malfunctions, the chemical species that are emitted from IPCT consist of the naturally occurring constituents of the cooling water and any substances that are added to the cooling water. To determine what other HAP may be emitted from IPCT, we first contacted suppliers of cooling water treatment chemicals for information on cooling water additives that either contain 11 HAP or form HAP, which could be emitted from IPCT. Then, we conducted a literature search for information on emissions from cooling towers. The information collected from the water treatment chemical suppliers and through the literature search indicated that some biocides used to treat industrial cooling water either contain HAP or form HAP that can be emitted from IPCT. These HAP include chloroform,

methanol, and ethylene thiourea.

Industrial process cooling towers typically use one and not all of the three listed HAP at any given time.

Therefore, IPCT emit no more than one of the three listed HAP. We estimated worst case emission rates for chloroform,

methanol, and ethylene thiourea based on the range of concentrations of these constituents in cooling water and the model plants developed for the IPCT NESHAP. We used these emission rates to model exposure concentrations surrounding those sources, calculated the risk of possible chronic cancer and noncancer health effects, evaluated whether acute exposures might exceed relevant health thresholds, and investigated human health multipathway and ecological risks.

Consistent with the tiered modeling approach described in the Residual Risk Report to Congress, the risk assessment for this source category started with a simple assessment 12 which used conservative assumptions in lieu of site specific data. The results demonstrated negligible risks for potential chronic cancer, chronic noncancer, and acute noncancer health endpoints. Also, no significant human health multipathway or ecological risks were identified.

Had the resulting risks been determined to be nonnegligible a more refined analysis with site specific data would have been necessary. The assessment is described in detail in the memorandum A Residual Risk Assessment for the Industrial Process Cooling Source Category,@ which is available in the docket.

Since our assessment shows that sources subject to the IPCT NESHAP pose maximum lifetime excess cancer risks which are significantly less than 1 in 1 million, EPA concluded that public health is protected with an ample margin of safety, and since noncancer health risks and ecological risks were also found to be insignificant for this source category, EPA is not obligated to adopt standards under section 112( f) of the CAA.

D. What were the conclusions of the technology review?

Section 112( d)( 6) of the CAA requires EPA to review,

and revise as necessary ( taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated under section 112 no less often than 13 every 8 years. As we stated in the preamble to the Coke Ovens residual risk rule ( 70 FR 20009), and as discussed below, the facts underlying a section 112( f) determination should be key factors in making any subsequent section 112( d)( 6) determinations. For this and several other source categories, we were under consent decree deadlines to complete both the section 112( d)( 6) technology review and the section 112( f)( 2) residual risk analysis by the same date. As a result, we conducted the two reviews concurrently and did not have the results of the section 112( f)( 2) analysis before we began the section 112( d)( 6)

technology review.

For the IPCT source category, the emission standards imposed an absolute prohibition on the use of chromium based water treatment chemicals in IPCT. As the emission standards imposed for this particular source are already at the most stringent level, no more stringent standards could be imposed. Nor has EPA received any evidence which would justify a downward revision of the standards. In the residual risk analysis discussed above, EPA has considered risks for HAP emissions that are not currently subject to emission standards but are attributable to the source category or subcategory. Since the risk from other HAP emitted from IPCT due to the addition of water treatment 14 chemicals was determined to be very low and the emission standards already preclude the use of chromium based water treatment chemicals, we concluded that no further controls are necessary under 112( d)( 6).

E. What was the proposed action?

On October 24, 2005, based on the findings from our residual risk and technology review, we proposed no further action to revise the NESHAP ( 70 FR 61411) and requested public comment.

II. Today's Action A. What is today's final action?

Today's final action responds to public comments received on the proposed action and announces our final decision to amend the applicability section of the rule in response to public comments received on the proposed action.

B. What comments were received on the proposed action?

In the proposed action, we requested public comment on our residual risk review and our technology review and on issues of delisting the source category and conducting future technology reviews. By the end of the public comment period, comments from nine entities had been received. A summary of the major comments and EPA's responses are provided in the sections below. 15 1. Residual Risk Approach Comment: Two commenters urged EPA to carefully lay out the context and framework of the Residual Risk Program to ensure that the public understands the program and can adequately evaluate EPA's decisions regarding residual risk.

The commenters identified several specific aspects of the program, which they believe need to be conveyed to the public. Among those, they included: the success of the MACT program in controlling HAP emissions; further regulatory steps are not required if EPA determines that existing MACT standards have provided an ample margin of safety; and the public can be assured that residual risk rules will provide such a margin of safety in those cases where the standard has not achieved an ample margin of safety. The commenters also stated that it is important for EPA to put the risks associated with major stationary sources in the proper context. The commenters stated that major stationary sources account for only a small percentage of the estimated cancer risk from HAP nationwide. In addition, they urged EPA to present risk from air toxics in context with the risks from other forms of air pollution.

Specifically, they pointed out that the unit risk factors assigned to air toxics are much more conservative than the factors assigned to criteria pollutants. As a result, risk 16 estimates for criteria pollutants should not be compared to estimates of risk based on HAP emissions from stationary sources subject to NESHAP.

Response: We agree that it is important to provide context for any residual risk rule. In the preamble of the current rule, we describe the MACT program and its impact on the IPCT source category. We also describe our statutory authority and our obligations to assess risks to human health and the environment under section 112( f) of the CAA,

as well as the requirement to further regulate categories of sources if any of the estimated individual cancer risks exceed the statutory trigger level of 1 in 1 million.

We disagree with the commenter's contention that it is appropriate to draw the general conclusion that all major stationary sources make relatively small contributions to individual risk levels in their neighborhoods. Rather, the risks posed by any individual major stationary source depend upon a number of factors, including emission rates at the source, proximity of exposed populations to the emission source, the specific HAP emitted, local meteorological conditions, and terrain conditions surrounding the source.

Therefore, the relative contribution of a particular major stationary source to individual risk levels in its vicinity will vary dramatically depending on the local conditions at 17 and around that specific source. This variability is not captured by the national average contribution of major sources to population risk levels mentioned by the commenter.

We agree that our risk assessment for the IPCT source category appropriately contains a number of healthprotective assumptions and uses health protective inhalation risk values. The overall result is a screening assessment that is designed to overestimate, rather than underestimate,

risks. The commenters make the seemingly contradictory arguments that we should both present risks from air toxics in the context of those from criteria pollutants and that it is inappropriate to make direct comparisons between assessments of risk for air toxics and criteria pollutants.

Given the different goals of the residual risk program and the criteria pollutant program, we agree with their second point that estimates of risk generated for air toxics are not directly comparable to those generated for criteria pollutants.

Comment: Four commenters expressed support for EPA's tiered approach to evaluating residual risk by first performing a screening assessment, followed by a refined assessment. One commenter commented that, if a screening risk assessment based on conservative assumptions shows that 18 risks are negligible, no further assessments or actions should be taken. All four commenters stated that EPA must proceed with the refined approach unless, as was the case for IPCT, the worst case screening assessment indicates that the risk is less than 1 in 1 million. One commenter stated that in evaluating the residual risk for IPCT, EPA correctly used the same approach used for the 1989 Benzene NESHAP ( 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y).

Response: We acknowledge the commenters' support of our general approach to risk assessment and agree that, had risks from the IPCT exceeded the statutory trigger of 1 in 1 million cancer risk or exceeded a similar level of protection for threshold effects, we would have conducted a more refined assessment.

Comment: Three commenters stated that, when presenting the results of the initial screening, it is important for EPA to explain the conservative nature of the assumptions and the limitations of this approach to avoid any misperceptions by the public. Two of the commenters added that otherwise, the public may mistakenly believe that the contribution to risk from major stationary sources is much greater than it actually is. The commenters also encouraged EPA to use the most accurate emission data and models to ensure accurate risk assessments and avoid mischaracterizing 19 the risk from the regulated sources. One commenter added that site specific data should be used in residual risk assessments when possible.

Response: We agree that our risk assessment for IPCT contains a number of health protective assumptions resulting in a screening assessment that is designed to overestimate,

rather than underestimate, risks. However, the healthprotective assumptions incorporated into this screening risk assessment are appropriate because we are generalizing the results from a single model facility to all cooling towers in the source category. We designed this approach to ensure that the model facility presents at least as much risk as the worst case actual facility. Then, by demonstrating that risks from our worst case model facility are low, we can easily conclude that risks from IPCT at any actual facility will also be low.

The details of our risk assessment can be found in the memorandum titled, " Residual Risk Assessment for the Industrial Process Cooling Towers Source Category," which is available in the docket. As indicated above, a number of health protective assumptions are incorporated into the assessment. For example, we based the configuration of our model facility on one of the largest and highest emitting actual facilities in the IPCT source category. We estimated 20 worst case emission rates for this facility by assuming that it emitted methanol, ethylene thiourea, and chloroform from its cooling towers even though it is unlikely that any actual towers would emit more than one of these HAP. We assumed that individuals are exposed to IPCT emissions for 24 hours per day and 365 days per year for 70 years although the activity patterns of actual individuals would decrease exposure. Finally, we assumed that people lived at locations very close to the cooling towers. Often, these locations would actually be within the facility's fenceline,

where no one actually resides. This combination of healthprotective assumptions is appropriate for the IPCT assessment because it allows us to generalize the low risk finding from a single model source to all sources in the category. If we had not been able to use this approach to make the low risk finding, we would indeed have collected more refined, site specific data to develop a more precise risk assessment, but, in this situation, that was not necessary. 21 2. Co Located Sources Comment: Four commenters agreed with EPA's approach of considering the risk associated with the specific sources regulated by the NESHAP and not considering co located sources. Two of the commenters noted that the risk attributed to co located sources will be evaluated when the appropriate source category is reviewed under section 112( f)

of the CAA. The commenters stated that section 112( f)

clearly indicates that Congress intended the residual risk assessment for a specific source category to focus on the source category, as defined in the rulemaking under section 112( d), and not to encompass other source categories.

Response: We agree with commenters that the risks attributable to sources collocated with IPCTs will be evaluated when the appropriate category is reviewed under section 112( f). We do not agree that our section 112( f)

residual risk analyses must always focus only on the source category as defined in the rulemaking under section 112( d)

or that Congress intended to limit all residual risk analyses to the individual source categories in question.

As we stated in the preamble to the coke ovens residual risk rule ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart L), " EPA disagrees that section 112( f) precludes EPA from considering emissions other than those from the source category or subcategory 22 entirely." Rather, we have concluded that, when the statutory risk trigger is exceeded, the two step approach set forward in the Benzene NESHAP ( 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y) remains the approach that we should follow in determinations under section 112( f). At the first step,

when determining " acceptable risk," we will consider risks that result from emissions from the source category only.

However, during the second step, we must determine whether additional reductions should be required to protect public health with " an ample margin of safety." One of the factors that we can consider in this second step is environmental levels of HAP due to emissions from sources outside the source category being assessed. This could include ambient background concentrations of HAP as well as co location of other emission sources that augment the identified risks from the source category.

3. Approach When No Pre existing NESHAP Level of Control Exists Comment: Three commenters responded to our request for comment on the approach to evaluating residual risk when no pre existing NESHAP level of emissions exists. For example,

in the case of IPCT, the residual risk assessment considered three HAP that were not regulated under the NESHAP. The 23 commenters agreed with EPA's approach, stating that it is appropriate to evaluate and control emissions of other HAP if those HAP pose an unacceptable level of risk.

Response: We acknowledge the commenters' support of our approach to evaluating residual risk by considering all HAP emitted by the regulated sources, including those not addressed by the existing NESHAP.

4. Subcategorizing Source Categories to Satisfy Section 112( f)( 2)

Comment: Five commenters responded to our request for comment on the possibility of subcategorizing source categories for the purpose of satisfying the residual risk requirements specified in section 112( f)( 2) of the CAA. All five commenters supported the concept of subcategorizing source categories characterized by a broad range of risk levels. Four of the commenters noted that section 112( c)

gives EPA broad discretion in creating and modifying categories and subcategories of sources. By subcategorizing, EPA can distinguish between lower risk subcategories and those categories for which additional control is warranted. One of the commenters pointed out that emission characteristics, which vary by subcategory,

define the risk of adverse health and environmental impacts.

Therefore, establishing separate subcategories on the basis 24 of risk would be consistent with, and would best achieve,

the overall statutory mandate of section 112 of the CAA.

The same commenter stated that Congress provided a mechanism and criteria for subcategorizing with respect to risk in sections 112( c)( 9)( B)( i) and ( ii) to preclude overregulating sources that can meet consistent low risk criteria. Four of the commenters believe that subcategorizing with respect to residual risk would encourage sources to develop sitespecific approaches for reducing risk in order to avoid additional regulatory control, work practices, and associated permitting costs. One commenter stated that the intent of Congress was that EPA should focus MACT standards and residual risk requirements on those sources that present a risk of concern. Two of the commenters cited " Residual Risk: Report to Congress" ( EPA 453/ R 99 001), which supports the concept of regulating only those sources within a source category associated with unacceptable risk. Three of the commenters commented that sources within a lower risk subcategory would still be subject to the NESHAP and would have to continue complying with the standard in order to maintain its low risk status. The commenters further explained that, even if EPA decides not to subcategorize based on risk, residual risk standards should focus only on the subset of sources that poses unacceptable risk. 25 Response: We acknowledge the commenters' support for subcategorizing based on risk in order to satisfy section 112( f)( 2) of the CAA. We agree that the intent of Congress was that EPA should focus residual risk requirements on those sources within a category associated with unacceptable risk, but we do not agree that the intent of Congress was to focus MACT standards on only those sources. We agree that subcategorization, used appropriately, could allow flexibility for sources to develop site specific risk reduction strategies. Thus, subcategorization can be an appropriate strategy for focusing standards on the sources that pose the greatest risks. However, for the IPCT source category, our risk assessment indicated that all sources in the category are low risk. Therefore, there is no need, in the present case, to subcategorize based on risk or any other criteria. Nonetheless, such subcategorization may be an appropriate strategy for other source categories assessed under section 112( f) of the CAA.

5. Emissions from IPCT Comment: One commenter commented on our conclusion that emissions of chlorine from IPCT are unlikely under normal operating conditions. We based this conclusion on discussions with water treatment chemical suppliers and information presented in several technical publications on 26 water treatment, all of which clearly stated that chlorine emissions occur only under acidic conditions ( i. e., pH of 3.0 or less), and IPCT water treatment programs are designed to maintain alkaline conditions ( i. e., pH of 7.5 to 9.0) in the cooling water. The commenter stated that IPCT that are treated with chlorine gas ( Cl2) experience significant flash off of molecular chlorine. He noted that one facility estimated that chlorine emissions from flash off amounted to 18 percent of the chlorine gas used to treat the cooling water in an IPCT, and that annual emissions of chlorine from the IPCT were estimated to be 18.2 tons. The commenter did not provide documentation for that estimate. However, he did cite a report prepared by the University of Texas for the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ( TNRCC),

" Emission Inventory for Atomic Chlorine Precursors in Southeast Texas," which supports his comments regarding chlorine emissions due to flash off from IPCT. The TNRCC Report also states that the greater the pH, the greater the flash off rate, which may appear to contradict our conclusion regarding the relationship between pH and Cl2 emissions from IPCT.

Response: As noted above, the commenter did not provide documentation for the estimate of 18.2 tpy of chlorine emissions from a single IPCT. We assume that the 27 basis for that estimate was the TNRCC Report. We reviewed the TNRCC Report, as well as the primary references used as the basis for the chlorine emission estimates presented in the report. Based on our review, we maintain our conclusion that emissions of Cl2 from IPCT are not likely to occur under normal operating conditions.

With respect to the discrepancy between our conclusions regarding emissions of chlorine from IPCT, the statement by the commenter, and the information presented in the TNRC Report, there are two issues that must be resolved: ( 1)

which chlorine species are emitted from IPCT, and ( 2) what is the relationship between those emissions and the pH of the cooling water.

When gaseous chlorine is added to cooling water, it dissociates to form hypochlorous acid ( HClO), hydrogen ( H+),

and chloride ( Cl) ions. The HClO further dissociates to form hypochlorite ( ClO) and H+ ions. With respect to the chlorine species emitted, the TNRCC Report presents estimates assuming that chlorine emissions are entirely in the form of Cl2. The Report does not provide the basis for this assumption, but does note that ". . . chlorine may be released as HClO, Cl2, or in other chemical forms . . . "

The Report later states that emissions ". . . may be in the form of HOCl rather than Cl2." Apparently, because the 28 focus of the TNRCC Report was the magnitude of the emissions rather than the form of the chlorine emitted, the researchers did not attempt to determine which chlorine species would be emitted. The primary references cited in the TNRCC Report regarding chlorine emissions from IPCT are two journal articles from 1984 by Holzwarth, et. al. The introduction to the first of those articles explains that chlorine gas added to cooling water ". . . immediately reacts with water to form HOCl and HCl." All of the subsequent discussion and calculations in both papers regarding flash off are in terms of HOCl and other non Cl2 chlorine compounds. In fact, Cl2 is not mentioned again in either article. In other words, the Holzwarth articles support our conclusion that chlorine is not emitted from IPCT in the form of Cl2.

With respect to the relationship between chlorine emissions and pH, we do not argue that emissions from flashoff may increase with increasing pH. Our assessment concluded that the concentration of HOCl increases with increasing pH, and conversely, the concentration of Cl2 in the cooling water decreases with increasing pH. Therefore,

if flash off is in the form of HOCl or other non Cl2 species, our assessment supports the conclusion that greater emissions would be expected with higher pH levels because 29 concentrations of HOCl increase with increasing pH.

In summary, we believe our conclusions regarding emissions of Cl2 from IPCT are correct. Neither the commenter, nor the references cited by the commenter provide any basis for concluding otherwise.

6. Delisting the IPCT Source Category Comment: Six commenters responded to our request for comment on the issue of delisting the IPCT source category in light of the results of the residual risk assessment.

Two of the commenters opposed delisting the source category;

one of the commenters supported delisting; and the other commenters, although not opposed to delisting, found no compelling reason to do so. One of the commenters who opposed delisting stated that delisting the source category would not be appropriate because such action would allow owners and operators of IPCT to revert back to using chromium water treatment chemicals. The commenter also noted that delisting the source category would require State and local agencies to amend their rules accordingly.

Because there would not be a NESHAP to adopt by reference,

State and local agencies would be required to develop and adopt their own regulations on IPCT. In addition, the commenter pointed out that some regulatory agencies are prevented from adopting rules that are more stringent than 30 Federal requirements. In those cases, States and local agencies would have no legal means of preventing IPCT owners and operators from resuming the use of chromium water treatment chemicals in IPCT.

The other commenter who opposed delisting stated that,

if the source category were delisted, there would be nothing to prevent sources from increasing their HAP emissions substantially or changing their processes to emit new HAP,

either of which could result in HAP levels that are unacceptable to public health and the environment. He noted that such action would disregard the possibility that HAP emissions have been reduced to an acceptable level because of the NESHAP.

Three of the commenters were not opposed to delisting the IPCT source category, but remarked that there was no compelling reason to do so. The commenters noted that, even though the IPCT NESHAP does not apply to any existing sources, it is possible for the rule to apply to sources in the future. The commenters gave the example of an area source, which operated an IPCT using chromium water treatment chemicals and later became a major source. Once the facility became a major source, it would be subject to the NESHAP and would have to discontinue the use of chromium water treatment chemicals. The commenters stated that, on 31 the other hand, delisting a source category does not affect the applicability of an existing NESHAP. The commenters explained that the applicability of the Asbestos NESHAP ( 40 CFR part 61, subpart M) was unchanged after the source category was delisted. Finally, the commenters pointed out that none of the applicability requirements of Part 63 standards ( i. e., NESHAP) depend on source category listing.

One of the commenters supported delisting the IPCT source category. The commenter stated that our request for comment on this issue implied that we interpreted section 112( c)( 9) of the CAA to apply only before a MACT standard has been promulgated. According to the commenter, section 112( c)( 9) grants EPA the authority to delist a source category whenever the Administrator determines that the risks meet the established criteria. The commenter noted that delisting source categories based on risk prior to establishing standards under section 112( d) actually would conflict with the sequence of EPA's duties under section 112, which requires EPA to evaluate residual risk 8 years after promulgation. In addition, the commenter pointed out that EPA would likely not have sufficient data to fully assess the risk until several years after a standard had been in place. Finally, if EPA were to delist the source category, section 112( c)( 9) could still be used to establish 32 requirements to ensure that the risk remains within acceptable levels if EPA were to conclude that the risk associated with the source category could become unacceptable in the future.

Response: Based on our risk assessment of the IPCT source category, we have concluded that these sources are low risk and, therefore, that no further standards are required to protect public health with an ample margin of safety or to protect the environment. However, we agree with the commenter who argues that this conclusion is based,

at least in part, on the fact that the MACT requirements for these sources prevent IPCT from using chromium based water treatment strategies. Further, we disagree with the comment that delisting will not affect the existing NESHAP. The commenter cited the delisting action following the Asbestos NESHAP as support for their argument, noting that the applicability of that rule was not affected by delisting.

However, the Asbestos NESHAP was established under part 61,

which is not directly relevant in this situation since the IPCT NESHAP is a part 63 rule. If we delist this source category, it is our opinion that existing facilities with IPCT would no longer be subject to the NESHAP and would not be banned from using chromium. If any sources reverted to using chromium, risks could increase, and the basis for our 33 finding that the source category is low risk would be compromised. Thus, since compliance with the MACT standard is part of the basis for our low risk determination, we believe that it would be inappropriate to delist IPCT.

However, as long as the NESHAP exists and prohibits the use of chromium based water treatment chemicals, we agree with the commenters who suggest that IPCT sources no longer using these chemicals should not be subject to this NESHAP.

Therefore, we are amending the applicability section of the rule to clarify that sources no longer using chromium based water treatment chemicals are not subject to this NESHAP.

The NESHAP remains in effect, and any source that used chromium based water treatment chemicals will be subject to the rule and in violation.

Contrary to one commenter's contention, we do not interpret section 112( c)( 9) of the CAA to apply only before a MACT standard has been promulgated, although that is expected to be the situation in which it is most likely exercised. We agree that section 112( c)( 9) grants EPA the authority to delist a source category when the Administrator determines that risks meet the established criteria,

including after promulgation of a MACT standard. As we stated above, the use of section 112( c)( 9) to delist IPCT is neither necessary nor appropriate. 34 7. Technology Reviews Under Section 112( d)( 6)

Comment: One commenter remarked that EPA should not have conducted an initial technology review of the IPCT source category. The commenter explained that once a residual risk determination indicates the risk is acceptable, EPA must find that revising the standard under section 112( d)( 6) is not necessary. The commenter stated that the legislative history of the CAA demonstrates that Congress rejected imposing controls beyond levels considered to be safe and protective of public health because those controls would impose regulatory costs without any public health benefit. The commenter stated that, if Congress had intended EPA to conduct technology reviews regardless of the outcome of the residual risk assessment, there would be no need for section 112( f). The commenter believes that technology reviews under section 112( d)( 6) were meant to be regulatory backstop authority for residual risk reviews,

similar to the MACT hammer provision in section 112( j) of the CAA. That is, if EPA failed to address the residual risk for a source category, section 112( d)( 6) authority could be used to ensure that advances in technology could still be applied to the source category.

Response: We disagree with the comment that we should not have conducted an initial technology review under 35 section 112( d)( 6) for the IPCT source category. The timing requirements for the initial analysis under section 112( d)( 6) coincide with those for the residual risk analysis. Thus, it is appropriate for us to conduct both analyses at the same time. Although the results of the risk analysis may impact future section 112( d)( 6) technology reviews, these results do not negate the need to perform the initial review. Additional information regarding the relationship between residual risk standards and 112( d)( 6)

review requirements is provided in the preamble to the residual risk rule for coke ovens ( 70 FR 20008, April 15,

2005).

Comment: Seven commenters responded to our request for comment on continuing technology reviews every 8 years for source categories subject to NESHAP, as required by section 112( d)( 6) of the CAA. Four commenters stated that EPA should not use a " bright line approach" in determining the need for technology reviews under section 112( d)( 6) of the CAA. For example, the decision of whether or not to perform a technology review should not be based on a 1 in 1 million risk level, as is the case for residual risk. One of those commenters stated that discontinuing technology reviews would be contrary to the requirements of the CAA. The commenter noted that the phrase ". . . every 8 years" 36 implies a continuum rather than a single action, and if Congress had intended the technology review to be a one time requirement, it would have used other language in the CAA.

As an example of a one time requirement, the commenter cited CAA section 112( n)( 1), which states that " The Administrator shall conduct, and transmit to Congress not later than 4 years after the date of enactment . . .." The other commenter who opposed discontinuing technology reviews remarked that, without future reviews, it is unlikely that EPA would know what new technologies have been developed or know of any unforeseeable circumstances that might substantially change the source category or its emissions.

Three of the commenters stated that, by implementing residual risk requirements under section 112( f) or determining that residual risk requirements are not warranted, EPA completes its obligation to conduct technology reviews under section 112( d)( 6) of the CAA.

Thus, once the residual risk has been evaluated and the appropriate action taken, technology reviews are no longer required. However, the commenters also stated that later technology reviews may be appropriate if the ample margin of safety established by the residual risk process is based largely on cost or technical feasibility, and feasible,

cost effective controls are identified in the future. Four 37 of the commenters stated that technology reviews under section 112( d)( 6) should not provide for a continuing technology ratchet based on the availability of new technology. Instead, technology reviews should be conducted in the context of providing an ample margin of safety under section 112( f) of the CAA.

Response: We agree that a technology review is required every 8 years. However, if the ample margin of safety analysis for a section 112( f) standard shows that remaining risk for non threshold pollutants falls below 1 in 1 million and for threshold pollutants falls below a similar threshold of safety, then further revision should not be needed because an ample margin of safety has already been assured. Additional information regarding the relationship between residual risk standards and 112( d)( 6) review requirements is provided in the preamble to the residual risk rule for coke ovens ( FR 20008, April 15, 2005).

Comment: Four commenters commented that technology reviews under section 112( d)( 6) should be limited to emission standards already established under section 112( d).

Three of the commenters stated that, although it is appropriate to evaluate and control emissions of other HAP not regulated by the NESHAP under section 112( f), such HAP should not be considered under the section 112( d)( 6) 38 technology review.

Response: The emission standards imposed a prohibition on the use of chromium based water treatment chemicals in IPCT. Since the risk from other HAP emitted from IPCT due to the addition of water treatment chemicals was determined to be very low and the emission standards already preclude the use of chromium based water treatment chemicals, we concluded that no further controls are necessary under 112( d)( 6). Additional information regarding the relationship between residual risk standards and 112( d)( 6)

review requirements is provided in the preamble to the residual risk for coke ovens ( 70 FR 20008, April 15, 2005).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4,

1993), EPA must determine whether a regulatory action is " significant" and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines A significant regulatory action @

as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 39 jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,

local, or tribal governments or communities;

( 2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

( 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a A significant regulatory action @

within the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to OMB for review.

Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose any information collection burden. It will not change the burden estimates from those previously developed and approved for the existing NESHAP.

OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulation ( 59 FR 46350, September 8, 1994) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501, et seq. However, 40 this information collection request has been discontinued because the information requested in the original regulation is no longer needed.

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; 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.

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 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare 41 a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final action.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today =

s final action on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administrations' regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,

county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today =

s final action on small entities, EPA has concluded that this final action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final action will not impose any requirements on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with 42 A Federal mandates @

that may result in expenditures to State,

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year.

Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments,

including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, 43 educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Today's final action contains no Federal mandates ( under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA)

for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector because it imposes no enforceable duty on any State,

local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus,

today =

s final action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that the final action contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled A Federalism @

( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure A meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.@

A Policies that have federalism implications @

is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have A 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 44 the various levels of government.@

Today =

s final action does not have federalism implications. It 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. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled A Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments @

( 65 FR 67249,

November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure A meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.@ The final action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175.

It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to today =

s final action. 45 G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)

applies to any rule that: ( 1) is determined to be A economically significant @

as defined under Executive Order 12866 and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA.

The final action is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a significant disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The final action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 46 significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act As noted in the proposed rule, section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA),

Public Law No. 104 113, 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS. The final action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801, et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 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 the final rule National Emission Standards for Industrial Process Cooling Towers page 47 of 48 and other required information to the United States Senate,

the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the final rule 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). The final rule will be effective [ INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

_________________ Dated:

______________________ Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator 48 For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40,

chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Part 63 [ AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart Q [ AMENDED]

2. Section 63.400 is amended by revising paragraph ( a)

to read as follows:

§ 63.400 Applicability.

( a) The provisions of this subpart apply to all new and existing industrial process cooling towers that are operated with chromium based water treatment chemicals and are either major sources or are integral parts of facilities that are major sources as defined in § 63.401.

* * * * *


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 90407]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30007]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aging Aircraft
Program (Widespread Fatigue Damage)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved
information collection. The ``Aging Aircraft Program (Widespread
Fatigue Damage)'' final rule amended FAA regulation pertaining to
certification and operation of transport category airplanes to preclude
widespread fatigue damage in those airplanes.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by February 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda
Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0743.
    Title: Aging Aircraft Program (Widespread Fatigue Damage).
    Form Numbers:
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The rule requires that type certificate and
supplemental type certificate holders use documentation to demonstrate
to their FAA Oversight Office that they have complied with the rule by
establishing limits of validity of the engineering data that supports
the maintenance program (LOVs). Operators would submit the LOV to their
Principal Maintenance Inspectors to demonstrate that they are compliant
with the rule.
    Respondents: Approximately 30 operators.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 20 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 167 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 8, 2016.
Ronda L. Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2016-30007 Filed 12-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P