SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST RENEWAL:

" INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH EPA'S MOBILE AIR CONDITIONER RETROFITTING PROGRAM"

EPA ICR No. 1774.02 Page 2 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection This ICR is entitled " Information Collection Activities Associated with EPA's Mobile Air Conditioner Retrofitting Program," EPA ICR No. 1774.02, and OMB No. 2060 0350.

1( b) Short Characterization In 1994, the Significant New Alternatives Policy ( SNAP) Program was enacted, enabling the Agency to review available substitutes for ozone depleting substances ( ODS) and determine their acceptability. The Stratospheric Protection Division is responsible for phasing out chemicals which damage the stratosphere and therefore pose a threat to human health and the environment. Depletion of the stratosphere has resulted in sharp increases in melanoma, and non melanoma cancers due to increased exposure to UBA and UVB Radiation, and a higher incidence of cataracts ( the leading cause of blindness). Under the SNAP program, companies submit applications for review by the Stratospheric Protection Division ( SPD). SPD has 90 days to review the product data submitted, and determine if the substitute is acceptable, unacceptable, or if its use must be restricted. SPD is reviewing these substitutes for their impact on human health and the environment, ozone depleting potential, atmospheric lifetime, global warming potential, and flammability. Many substitutes are produced for multiple uses, and SPD must determine what uses are appropriate, and under what conditions. EPA does not evaluate the efficacy of the product to achieve the results the manufacturer intended. When SPD makes a decision that substitutes are acceptable, a Notice is published in the Federal Register listing them. If the substitute is found unacceptable or use restrictions are necessary, a notice and comment rulemaking is necessary to impose those restrictions. The list of substitutes is cumulative, with revisions to the list made quarterly. A comprehensive list of substitutes, their uses, and any relevant restrictions is maintained for distribution to interested parties.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need and Authority for the Collection The SNAP program includes review of potential alternatives to ozone depleting refrigerants used for air conditioning motor vehicles. With the phase out of chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs), and specifically CFC 12, SPD faces the challenge of identifying alternative refrigerants to keep approximately 40 million cars cool. Out of these 40 million, EPA estimates that 15 million will be retrofitted to use non ozone depleting alternative refrigerants between 2000 and 2002 ( the term of this ICR). The purpose of this Information Collection Request ( ICR) is to estimate the burden associated with the 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 82 requirement that service technicians label mobile air conditioners with information about new refrigerants when they retrofit a system. It is necessary to assess the time it will take for the service technician to fill out, sign, date, and place the label on the retrofitted air conditioner. This label will acknowledge that Page 3 the retrofitting has been completed, and that the mobile air conditioner cannot accept CFC refrigerant.

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any ozone depleting substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that ( 1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment, and ( 2) is currently or potentially available. EPA is concerned that the existence of several substitutes in this end use may increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant crosscontamination and potential failure of both air conditioning systems and recovery/ recycling equipment. In addition, a smooth transition to the use of substitutes strongly depends on the continued purity of the recycled CFC 12 supply.

b) Use and Users of the Data The purpose of the label is to alert service technicians and car owners that the car has been retrofitted to use non CFC refrigerant. The label will provide essential information to technicians about the specific refrigerant used in the air conditioning system. This information will assist the technician in avoiding service practices that might result in cross contamination and system failure. As the stores of CFC refrigerant and recycled CFC refrigerant are depleted, increasing numbers of vehicles are being retrofitted to use alternative refrigerants.

3. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 3( a) Respondents and SIC Codes The following is a list of Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes and associated industries that may be affected by information collection requirements covered under this ICR:

551 New and used car dealers 554 Gas service stations 7532PT Top and body repair shops 7538 General automotive repair shops 7539 Automotive repair shops not elsewhere classified, including air conditioning and radiator specialty shops 3( b) Information Requested The Agency will not standardize the label, but rather allow the industry to devise a format Page 4 that accommodates information about the refrigerants on the market. Unique fittings and labels will be necessary for different refrigerants in order to avoid cross contamination. We recommend using different colored labels for each refrigerant. EPA will work closely with refrigerant developers to eliminate the risk of duplication. The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the air conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the following information:

o the name and address of the technician and the company performing the retrofit o the date of the retrofit o the trade name, charge amount, and when applicable, the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air conditioning Engineers ( ASHRAE) refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant o the type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used o if the refrigerant is or contains an ozone depleting substance, the label must state " ozone depleter" o if the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured according to the American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM) Standard E681, the statement " This refrigerant is FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions."

4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ( Not applicable)

5. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA A Federal Register Notice making this supporting statement available for public comment was published on November 10, 1999. No comments were received.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden EPA will not develop a standard label, but rather the manufacturers will have the opportunity to produce unique labels to accompany their refrigerant. Much of the information required on the labels can be printed with the labels, thereby lessening the burden on the individual service shops, many of which are small businesses. These labels may also contain information about the specific fittings the service technician should use, with the subject refrigerant, to minimize the potential for cross contamination when the system is serviced at a later date. We will work closely with industry in carrying out these labeling requirements, because there are several manufacturers who will have alternative refrigerant products on the Page 5 market. Proper labeling will result in considerable savings to industry and the public, since it will greatly reduce the chance of refrigerant contamination. There are now 10 alternative refrigerants on the market listed under the SNAP program as acceptable replacements for CFC 12 for mobile air conditioning. Considerable costs would accrue if refrigerants were contaminated ( mixed), specifically: costs to repair systems which failed as a result; costs to recover, separate, and dispose of contaminated refrigerant.

EPA estimates that there are approximately 140,000 service technicians, who will be responsible for retrofitting some 15,000,000 cars by the year 2002 ( 5,000,000 cars retrofitted per year). EPA estimates the time to complete and apply the label at 5 minutes per car, making the total burden 416,667 hours per year. At $ 50 per hour, the overall cost associated with the burden hours is $ 20,833,333 per year. The cost for designing, typesetting, printing and distributing 5,000,000 labels is $ 500,000 ($ .10 per label) per year. Adding the labor and operation and maintenance costs together yields a total cost burden of $ 21,333,333 per year.

6( b) Burden Statement 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 are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information ( OEI), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code 2822, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence.


[Federal Register: April 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 18370-18371]
[DOCID:fr22ap09-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL09-46-000; QF09-321-001]

East Bay Municipal Utility District; Notice of Filing

April 15, 2009.
    Take notice that on April 3, 2009, East Bay Municipal Utility
District (EBMUD) filed a petition for declaratory order, requesting a
limited waiver of the filing requirement for its qualifying
congeneration facility, for the period of March 17, 2006 to April 3,
2009, pursuant to section 292.203(b)(2) of the

Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 292.203(b)(2).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 30, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-9171 Filed 4-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection ICR for NESHAP Subpart MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient ( PAI) Production ( 1807.2)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract Respondents are owners and operators of new and existing facilities that engage in the production of pesticide active ingredients and emit hazardous air pollutants ( HAP's). The source category comprises approximately 300 plants; of these, 78 facilities were determined to meet the applicability criteria at the time the rule was issued. A 2 percent annual increase in the number of facilities was expected, which has been rounded up to approximately 2 facilities per year from the date of the issuance of the regulation through the period covered by this ICR.

Owners or operators of PAI production facilities to which this regulation applies must choose one of the compliance options described in the rule or install and monitor a specific control system that reduces HAP emissions to the compliance level. The respondents are subject to sections of subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 relating to NESHAP. These requirements include those associated with the applicability determination; the notification that the facility is subject to the rule; and the notification of testing ( control device performance test and CMS performance evaluation); the results of performance testing and CMS performance evaluations; startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports; and semiannual or quarterly summary reports and/ or excess emissions and CMS performance reports. In addition to the requirements of subpart A, many respondents are required to submit a precompliance plan and LDAR reports, and plants that wish to implement emissions averaging provisions must submit an emissions averaging plan.

Respondents electing to comply with the emission limit or emission reduction requirements for process vents, storage tanks, or wastewater must record the values of equipment operating parameters as specified in § 63.1367 of the rule. Owners or operators are required to install, operate, and maintain a continuous monitoring system ( CMS).

If the owner or operator identifies any deviation resulting from a known cause for which no Federally approved or promulgated exemption from an emission limitation or standard applies, the compliance report shall also include all records that the source is required to maintain that pertain to the periods during which such deviation occurred, as well as the following: the magnitude of each deviation; the reason for each deviation; a description of the corrective action taken for each deviation, including action taken to minimize each deviation and action taken to prevent recurrence; and a copy of all quality assurance activities performed on any element of the monitoring protocol. 2 Owners or operators of PAI production facilities subject to the rule must maintain a copy of all monitored equipment operating parameter values that demonstrate compliance with the standards. Those records must be maintained for a minimum of 5 years. At a minimum, the most recent 2 years of data shall be retained onsite. The remaining 3 years of data may be retained offsite. All reports are to be submitted upon request to EPA or the respondent's State or local agency, whichever has been delegated enforcement authority by EPA. The information is used to determine whether or not all sources subject to the NESHAP are achieving the standards.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is required under section 112( d) of the 1990 Clean Air Act ( the Act) to regulate emissions of HAP's listed in section 112( b). The predominant HAP's used in PAI production operations include toluene, methanol, and HCl. In the Administrator's judgement, the pollutants emitted from PAI production facilities cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. Therefore, this source category was listed for regulation under section 112. ( Note: The original source category list included 10 source categories in the Agricultural Chemicals Production industry group. The rule groups these 10 source categories into one category, adds production of additional chemicals, and changes the name of the source category to Pesticide Active Ingredient Production.)

Records and reports are necessary to enable the Administrator to identify sources subject to the standard. The precompliance plan and emissions averaging plan are necessary to ensure that the standard, which is based on maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) for PAI production facilities, will be achieved. After the compliance date, all respondents must submit semiannual ( every 6 months) summary reports that contain the information requested in § 63.1368 of the rule. In addition, respondents that elect to comply with the alternative standard for process vents and storage vessels and experience excess emissions above threshold time periods must submit quarterly summary reports and excess emissions reports containing information requested in § 63.1368. Respondents that elect to use the emissions averaging provisions must submit an annual report as specified in § 63.1368 of the rule. These records and reports are required under the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A [ as authorized under sections 101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Act as amended by Pub. L 101 549 ( 42 U. S. C. 7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, 7601)].

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The information will be used by EPA enforcement personnel to: ( 1) identify new, modified, reconstructed, and existing sources subject to the standards; ( 2) ensure that MACT is being properly applied; and ( 3) ensure that the emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained on a continuous basis In addition, records and reports are necessary to enable the EPA to identify facilities that are not in compliance with the standards. Based on reported information, the EPA can decide which facilities should be inspected and what records or processes should be inspected at these 3 facilities. The records that facilities maintain would indicate to the EPA whether the owners or operators are in compliance with the standards.

Much of the information EPA would need to determine compliance would be recorded on a continuous, daily, or monthly basis. Such information would be reviewed by enforcement personnel during an inspection and would need to be reported on a semiannual or quarterly basis.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication Certain reports required by State or local agencies may duplicate information required by the rule. In such cases, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can be provided to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the rule.

3( b) Consultations The EPA published a list of categories of major and area sources of HAP on July 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 21592), under authority of section 112( c); this notice listed PAI production as a category of major sources of HAP. ( As noted above, this rule changes the name of the source category from Agricultural Chemicals Production to Pesticide Active Ingredient Production.) Representatives of the PAI production industry, including the American Crop Protection Association ( ACPA), were consulted during the development of the standards, and several meetings have been held with ACPA during this time. The EPA has distributed a number of preliminary standards development packages to both State and Federal government agencies and ACPA, and all were given opportunity to comment on the presented regulatory development activities for these standards. In meetings with ACPA and government agencies, representatives were given an opportunity to comment on the regulatory approach. The major topics of these discussions included the applicability, MACT floor approach, regulatory strategies, and the national impacts of the regulation. No specific information was provided with respect to burden estimates.

On April 18, 2000, EPA published a notification ( 65 FR 20813) regarding the proposed renewal of this ICR. In that notice EPA requested comments regarding the utility of this collection, accuracy of burden estimates, and suggestions to enhance the clarity, utility, and quality of the collection and to minimize the burden. No comments were submitted to the Agency in response to this request.

3( c) Effects of Less Frequent Collection In the three years following the effective date of the standard, existing sources will submit only one time reports to the Agency. In this instance, less frequent reporting would not be practical because the EPA needs the information provided in these one time reports. In addition to these one time reports, new and reconstructed sources will also submit semiannual or quarterly 4 reports in the three years following the effective date of the standard. If the relevant information were collected less frequently than semiannually or quarterly, EPA would not be reasonable assured that a PAI production facility is in compliance with the standards. Less frequent collection could result in long term exceedances of the applicable emission limits. This reporting frequency is consistent with the requirements of title V permit programs. Consequently, less frequent reports would not result in a reduced burden.

3( d) General Guidelines This ICR requires that PAI production facilities retain records for a period of 5 years, which exceeds the 3 year limit specified in 5 CFR 1320.6. However, maintaining records for 5 years is consistent with the General Provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 and the permitting requirements under 40 CFR part 70. All sources subject to this rule will be required to obtain operating permits either through the State approved permitting program or, if one does not exist, in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 71, when promulgated. None of the other guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6 are being exceeded.

3( e) Confidentiality ( i) Confidentiality All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

( ii) Sensitive Questions.

This section is not applicable because this ICR does not involve matters of a sensitive nature.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS and SIC Codes Respondents are owners or operators of PAI production facilities that are classified as major sources under section 112 of the Act. The primary North American Industry Codes ( NAICS) are 325199 and 32532. The primary SIC codes for the respondents affected by the rule are 2869 ( industrial organic chemicals, NEC) and 2879 ( pesticides and agricultural chemicals). Not all processes classified in the NAICS or SIC codes above would be regulated by the standards.

4( b) Information Requested 5 ( i) Data items Attachment 1, Source Data and Information Requirements, summarizes recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

( ii) Respondent activities The respondent activities required by the standards in the three year period covered by this ICR are listed in the first columns of Tables 1a through 1d on pages 12 15. Table 1a presents the one time activities for the first year; Table 1b presents the recurrent activities required in the first year; Table 1c presents the one time activities required in the second and third year; and Table 1d presents the recurrent activities required by the standards in the second and third years.

5. Information Collected Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities Agency activities for the first 3 years following the effective date of the standards are provided in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c and are discussed in section 6( c).

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Information contained in the initial, one time only reports will be collected by the Agency and entered into a data system for information collection. Data obtained during periodic visits by EPA personnel, from records maintained by the respondents, and from information provided in reports will be tabulated and published for internal EPA use in compliance and enforcement programs. The NESHAP does not require the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological data collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Although many of the larger companies have elaborate data collection methods, automated systems are not expected to reduce the reporting burden.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility Few of the facilities in this source category are expected to meet the applicability criteria for small businesses. The EPA does not expect that any PAI production facilities, including the small businesses, will experience adverse impacts related to the cost of the required reporting and recordkeeping.

5( d) Collection Schedule For all existing sources, the initial notification report stating that the source is subject to the regulation must be submitted within 4 months ( 120 days) after the effective date of this standard. New sources for which construction or reconstruction commenced after the effective date of this standard must submit the initial notification as soon as practicable before the 6 construction or reconstruction commences ( but no sooner than the effective date of the standard). New sources for which the construction or reconstruction has commenced but initial startup has not occurred before the effective date of this standard must submit the initial report as soon as practicable before startup but no later than 60 days after the effective date of the standard. New or reconstructed PAI production facilities must comply immediately upon the effective date of the promulgated rule if their startup date is before the effective date or upon startup if the startup date is on or after the effective date.

Within 150 calendar days after the compliance date, owners or operators of new and existing PAI production facilities must submit an initial notification of compliance status ( and implementation plan if averaging emissions) to the Administrator. Records necessary to determine on going compliance must be compiled on a daily or monthly basis and notifications of compliance status must be submitted to the Administrator on a semiannual or quarterly basis, as discussed in section 1( b).

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The annual burden estimates for reporting and recordkeeping activities are presented in Tables 1( a) 1( d). Tables 1( a) and 1( b) present the estimated one time total and recurrent hourly burden to the industry for reporting and recordkeeping activities during the last year prior to the compliance date, i. e., the first year of this ICR. Tables 1( c) and 1( d) present the estimated onetime total and recurrent hourly burden to the industry for reporting and recordkeeping activities during the first and second years after the compliance date, i. e., the second and third years of this ICR. The burden estimates in each table were derived from estimates based on the EPA's experience with other standards, and were used in the initial ICR submitted at rule promulgation.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses a technical labor rate of $ 54.94 per hour. This rate is from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 1999, Table 10: Employment Costs for Private Industry by Occupational and Industry Group. The rate is from column 1: Total compensation. The wage rate has been loaded by adding 110% overhead.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs The average annual capital costs are being adjusted upward from the annual capital costs estimated in the first ICR. The adjustment reflects the total capital costs for this information collection incurred in the period of the ICR, and does not ammortize it over an extended period. This is a more accurate way to account for the capital costs at the time that they are actually incurred by the respondents. 7 Capital costs include performance testing, and file storage and CMS equipment acquisition and maintenance. Performance testing is considered to be a capital cost as it is customarily performed by contractor support. The capital start up costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the standard. The annual operations and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs all persons must meet. Total respondent costs have been calculated on the addition of the capital start up costs and the annual operations and maintenance costs.

Performance tests are estimated to cost $ 26,100 ( times two for each facility) for process vents CMS and $ 10,690 each for wastewater CMS. Monitoring systems including data acquisition are estimated to cost $ 15,920 each. File cabinets are estimated to cost $ 250 each. These costs are based on the previous ICR, corrected for a three year aggregate inflation rate of 6.9% from June 1997 through June, 2000. This inflation rate was determined from the monthly producer price index ( PPI) values for this industry ( i. e., chemical production) determined by the Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In 1997 the affected industry was estimated to comprise 78 facilities, with 2 new facilities added per year and one reconstructed each year. Prior to the year of the compliance date ( year 2 of this ICR) only the new and reconstructed facilities are subject to compliance costs. At the year of the compliance date, the facilities subject to capital costs comprise the original 78 facilities, less the three that have undergone reconstruction from 1999 through 2001, plus the estimated 2 new facilities that year, for a total of 77. Subsequent years' capital costs are based on the assumption that 2 new facilities will be added per year, and that operational changes will affect 10% of existing facilities.

Each facility is estimated to need process vent monitoring systems and performance testing. Of those, 40% are estimated to also need wastewater monitoring systems and performance testing. Each facility will need to acquire data acquisition systems and file storage equipment.

Capital costs for the three year period of this ICR are estimated to total $ 4.81 million for performance tests, $ 0.02 million for file storage, and $ 1.80 million for data acquisition systems. This is a total of $ 6.63 million, and an average annual capital cost of $ 2.21 million.

As the monitoring equipment is considered reliable, the operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be 25% of the average annualized capital costs of that equipment operating at all facilities under compliance. As the average annualized costs of such equipment is approximately $ 102,000 ($ 92,000 for equipment installed per this ICR; $ 10,000 for equipment installed during the previous ICR), the annual O& M costs are estimated to be approximately $ 25,500.

( iii) Capital Start up vs. Operating and Maintenance Costs The total Capital/ Start up costs for this ICR are $ 6.63 million. This corresponds to an annualized cost of $ 2,210,000, shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 letter a: Total annualized capital/ startup costs. 8 The total annual Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs for this ICR are $ 25,500. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 letter b: Total annual costs ( O& M).

The total respondent costs have been calculated on the addition of the capital start up costs and the annual operations and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital and operations and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 2,235,000. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 letter c: Total annualized cost requested.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs Because the information collection requirements were estimated as an incidental part of standards development, no costs can be attributed to the development of the information collection requirements. In addition, no operational costs will be incurred by the Federal Government because reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of the respondents are required under section 112 of the Act. Publication and distribution of the information are part of EPA's Compliance Data System, with the result that no Federal costs can be attributed to the ICR. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of the EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program and, therefore, is not attributable to the ICR.

The only costs that the Federal Government will incur are user costs associated with the analysis of the information reported by the sources in one time reports and semiannual or quarterly reports ( unless the compliance report indicates a violation, thereby triggering an enforcement action). Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c represent the estimated annual burden to the Federal Government during the first, second, and third years after the effective date of the standards.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs The number of existing sources subject to NESHAP Subpart MMM is 78. The number of new sources subject to NESHAP Subpart MMM is 6. An estimated 2 new sources per year will be added to the respondent universe. Total annual labor costs are $ 2,953,153 and total annualized capital and O& M costs are $ 2,235,000.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs/ Master Tables ( i) The simple collection See Tables 1a through 1d on pages 12 15 for determinations of respondent implementation and recurrent costs. The burden totals and calculated costs from these tables are summarized in table 1e, below. 9 Table 1e. Summary of Annual Burden to Respondents.

Total burden, hours Total costs, $

Table 1a ( one time activities in first year) 3,052 $ 167,677 Table 1b ( recurrent activities in first year) 7,306 $ 401,392 Table 1c ( one time activities in second year) 29,493 $ 1,620,345 Table 1c ( one time activities in third year) 978 $ 53,731 Table 1d ( recurrent activities in second year) 59,532 $ 3,270,688 Table 1d ( recurrent activities in third year) 60,896 $ 3,345,626 Total 161,257 $ 8,859,459 Bottom line annual burden 53,752 $ 2,953,153 ( ii) The Agency tally See Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c on pages 16 18 for determination of Agency costs. Table 2d below summarizes the costs in this table.

Table 2d. Summary of Agency Burden Total burden, hours Total costs, $

Table 2a ( first year) 2,756 $ 109,201 Table 2b ( second year) 5,944 $ 240,861 Table 2c ( third year) 2,734 $ 108,337 Total 11,434 $ 458,399 Bottom line annual burden 3,811 $ 152,800 ( iii) The complex collection This section does not apply because this is a simple collection.

( iv) Variations in the annual bottom line The annual burden hours and costs associated with one time activities vary over the course of the 3 year review period because existing sources are subject to different requirements in each year as follows: ( 1) notification of performance tests, CMS performance evaluation, and 10 submission of precompliance reports in the first year; ( 2) developing and submitting an emissions averaging plan ( if appropriate), notification of compliance status in the second year; and ( 3) recordkeeping and reporting in the second and third ( and subsequent) years for all facilities. The burden associated with recurrent activities increases each year ( by a constant amount) because additional new and reconstructed facilities are subject to the standard. The respondent annual burden hours and costs for the three years of this ICR are shown in Tables 1a 1d. The EPA burden hours and costs will also vary over the 3 year review period because they will be reviewing the initial notifications, the emissions averaging plan ( if appropriate), the precompliance plan, and the notifications of performance tests and CMS performance evaluations. The EPA will also review notifications and compliance reports for new sources over the three years as they are constructed/ reconstructed and as startup begins. Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c present the EPA burden hours and costs of each of the 3 years of this ICR.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The reason for the change in burden is a program change. This ICR encompasses the compliance date whereafter the existing 78 sources must perform the reporting and recordkeeping activities addressed by this ICR. The previous ICR addressed pre compliance activities for these facilities, and full compliance activities only for the estimated two new sources per year that were required to comply immediately upon the effective date of the rule. Therefore, this ICR represents a significant change in burden from the previous ICR.

6( g) Burden Statement ( i) The EPA is required under section 112( d) of the Act to regulate emissions of HAP's listed in section 112( b).

( ii) The information is needed as part of the overall compliance and enforcement program. The information in the one time notification of compliance status will be stored in EPA's Compliance Data System and will be available to stakeholders.

( iii) The total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection is estimated to be 53,752 hours, or $ 2,953,153 per year for the entire source category. The average burden per respondent ( the average number of respondents over the three year period of the ICR is 86) is 625 hours per year. During these three years, the rule requires several initial one time notifications and reports from all facilities. In addition, new and reconstructed sources are required to submit an initial one time notification of compliance status and subsequent notification semiannually or quarterly to indicate their ongoing compliance status. Each respondent also must keep necessary records of data to determine compliance with the NESHAP. In the first year, the collection requirements would be applicable to an estimated 84 respondents, and an estimated 2 additional facilities will be subject to the standard in each subsequent year. This estimate of the average burden 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; 11 adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; and search data sources. Send comments on the EPA's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, OEI Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2137), 401 M Street S. W., Washington, DC 20460, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street N. W., Washington, DC 20503, marked " Attention: Desk Officer for EPA." Include the ICR number 1807.02 and OMB Control Number 2060 0370 in any correspondence.

( iv) Capital costs for the three year period of this ICR are estimated to total $ 4.81 million for performance tests, $ 0.02 million for file storage, and $ 1.80 million for data acquisition systems. This is a total of $ 6.63 million, and an average annual capital cost of $ 2.21 million. The total annualized cost is approximately $ 2,235,000. The total annual Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs for this ICR are $ 25,500.

( v) The respondents would be subject to applicable recordkeeping, reporting, and other requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 and 63.10, the General Provisions for the part 63 rules.

( vi) All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B Confidentiality of Information ( see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

( vii) The EPA 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 the EPA's regulations are listed in a table in 40 CFR part 9. The EPA will amend part 9 when the ICR is approved. 12 TABLE 1a. ESTIMATED LABOR AND COST TO INDUSTRY TO IMPLEMENT RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS LAST YEAR PRIOR TO COMPLIANCE DATE ( 2001)

Burden Item ( a) A Person hours per occurrence B Number of occurrences per year C Person hour per respondent per year ( C= A* B) D Respondents Per Year E Total Burden Hours 1st Year ( E= C* D)

1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions ( c, d) 2 1 2 2 4 B. Required Activities Performance evaluation test ( certification of CMS) ( d, e) 13 6 77 3 230 C. Create Information Included in 3E D. Gather Existing Information Included in 3E E. Write Report Notification of construction/ reconstruction ( d) 2 1 2 3 6 Notification of anticipated startup ( d) 2 1 2 3 6 Notification of actual start up ( d) 2 1 2 3 6 Notification of applicability of the standard  Existing source ( d) 2 1 2 0 0  New source ( d) 2 1 2 2 4 Emissions averaging plan ( f) 40 1 40 0 0 Precompliance plan ( g) 40 1 40 40 1,600 Notification of initial performance test( s) ( d, h) 2 1 2 70 140 Notification of initial CMS performance evaluation ( d) 2 1 2 78 156 Notification of compliance status  With performance test ( h, i) 80 1 80 3 240  Without performance test ( j) 120 1 120 0 0 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions Included in 3A B. Plan Activities N/ A C. Implement Activities N/ A D. Develop record system ( k) 40 1 40 3 120 E. Develop startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( l) 100 1 100 3 300 F. Develop QA/ QC plan for CMS ( m) 40 1 40 3 120 G. Time to train personnel ( n) 40 1 40 3 120 H. Time for audits N/ A Total 3052 ( a) See attachment 2 for further explanation of respondent activities. ( b) Costs are based on the technical hourly rate of $ 54.94, which includes an overhead adjustment of 110% of the hourly rate. ( c) This will occur only in the first year after a facility becomes subject to the rule. ( d) There were an estimated 78 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP at the time of rulemaking. Assuming 2 percent growth per year, 2 new facilities will be built each year. Also assumes 1 existing facilitywill be reconstructed each year. ( e) Person hours per occurrence were computed in 1997 based on the performance specification costs to certify CMS ($ 500) divided by the composite hourly labor rate at that time. Facilities will each conduct 6 initial CMS performance evaluations ( assume 3 for process vents and 3 for wastewater per facility). ( f) Assumes 10 percent of facilities will comply with emissions averaging requirements; new facilities are not allowed to use emissions averaging. ( g) Assumes 50 percent of facilities will submit a precompliance plan. ( h) Assumes 90 percent of facilities will conduct a performance test. ( i) The notification of compliance status includes the report of the performance test and report of the CMS performance evaluation. ( j) Assumes 10 percent of facilities will comply by submitting engineering calculations, design calculations, etc. The notification of compliance status includes those calculations and the report of CMS performance evaluations. ( k) Assumes 40 hours to develop a record system for recording parameter monitoring information. ( l) Assumes 1 person would require 80 hours to draft the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and then another 20 hours of review/ revisions, for a total of 100 hours. ( m) Assumes 40 hours to develop and review the QA/ QC plan for the CMS. ( n) Assumes 40 hours to train personnel. 13 TABLE 1b. ESTIMATED RECURRENT LABOR AND COST TO INDUSTRY TO IMPLEMENT RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS LAST YEAR PRIOR TO COMPLIANCE DATE ( 2001)

Burden Item ( a) A Person hours per occurrence B Number of occurrences per year C Person hour per respondent per year ( C= A* B) D Respondents Per Year E Total Burden Hours 1st Year ( E= C* D)

1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions N/ A B. Required Activities N/ A C. Create Information N/ A D. Gather Existing Information N/ A E. Write Periodic Report ( c) Quarterly report of monitoring exceedances and periods of noncompliance ( d, e) 24 4 96 2 192 Semiannual reporting of no exceedances ( e, f) 8 2 16 7 112 LDAR Reporting ( g) 94 2 188 9 1,692 Annual emissions averaging plan report ( h) 20 1 20 0 0 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions N/ A B. Plan Activities N/ A C. Implement Activities N/ A D. Develop record system N/ A E. Time to enter information Records of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 1.5 52 78 9 702 Records of CMS data Record continuously monitored parameters ( e) 1 320 320 9 2,880 Compile data ( e) 24 4 96 9 864 Enter/ verify information for semiannual reports ( e) 16 2 32 9 288 LDAR Recordkeeping Included in 3E F. Calibration of CMS ( i) 48 1 48 9 432 G. Time to train personnel N/ A H. Time for refresher training for personnel ( j) 16 1 16 9 144 I. Time for audits N/ A Total 7,306 ( a) See attachment 2 for further explanation of respondent activities. ( b) Costs are based on the technical hourly rate of $ 54.94, which includes an overhead adjustment of 110% of the hourly rate. ( c) There were an estimated 78 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP at the time of rulemaking. Assuming 2 percent growth per year, 2 new facilities will be built each year. Also assumes 1 existing facilitywill be reconstructed each year. The number of respondents per year is based on the average number of respondents ( 6) over the three years following the effective date. ( d) Assumes 10 percent of facilities will have exceedances and periods of noncompliance. ( e) This entry includes process vent, storage tank, and wastewater monitoring and inspections. ( f) Assumes 90 percent of facilities will have no exceedances. ( g) According to EPA guidance, annual recordkeeping and reporting costs for the Reg Neg LDAR program are estimated to be 40 percent of initial and annual monitoring and repair labor. In 1997 this was computed at $ 9,246 per facility ( 40% x $ 9,246 = $ 3,698 per facility). Person hours per occurrence were based on this cost divided by the composite hourly labor rate at that time. Both recordkeeping costs and reporting costs are included in this entry. ( h) Assumes 10 percent of existing facilities will comply with emissions averaging requirements; new facilities are not allowed to use emissions averaging. ( i) Assumes calibration of the CMS will require 8 hours per year for each monitor. Assuming a total of 6 monitoring parameters for each facility, a total of 48 hours per year per facility is required. ( j) Assumes 2 days ( 16 hours) to provide refresher training for personnel. 14 TABLE 1c. ESTIMATED ONE TIME LABOR FOR INDUSTRY TO IMPLEMENT RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FIRST YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS FOLLOWING THE COMPLIANCE DATE ( 2002 AND 2003)

Burden Item ( a) A Person hours per occurrence B Number of occurrences per year C Person hour per respondent per year ( C= A* B) D Respondents First year after the compliance date E Respondents Subsequent years Burden hours 1st yr after c. d. Burden hourssub yrs 1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions ( b) 2 1 2 2 2 4 4 B. Required Activities Performance evaluation test ( certification of CMS) ( c) 13 6 77 77 2 5929 154 C. Create Information Included in 3E D. Gather Existing Information Included in 3E E. Write Report Notification of construction/ reconstruction ( d) 2 1 2 3 3 6 6 Notification of process changes ( e) 8 1 8 8 8 64 64 Notification of anticipated startup ( d) 2 1 2 3 3 6 6 Notification of actual start up ( d) 2 1 2 3 3 6 6  Existing source ( b) 2 1 2 0 0 0 0  New source ( b) 2 1 2 3 3 6 6 Precompliance report ( f) 40 1 40 1 1 40 40 Notification of initial performance test( s) ( b, g) 2 1 2 3 3 6 6 Notification of CMS performance evaluation ( b) 2 1 2 3 3 6 6 Notification of compliance status  With performance test ( g, h) 80 1 80 69 3 5520 240  Without performance test ( i) 120 1 120 8 0 960 0 Emissions averaging plan ( j) 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 4. Recordkeeping Requirements ( k) A. Read Instructions Included in 3A B. Plan Activities N/ A C. Implement Activities N/ A D. Develop record system ( l) 40 1 40 77 2 3080 80 E. Develop startup, shutdown, and malfuction plan ( m) 100 1 100 77 2 7700 200 F. Develop QA/ QC plan for CMS ( n) 40 1 40 77 2 3080 80 G. Time to train personnel ( o) 40 1 40 77 2 3080 80 H. Time for audits N/ A Total 29493 978 ( a) See attachment 2 for further explanation of respondent activities. ( b) There were an estimated 78 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP at the time of rulemaking. Assuming 2 percent growth per year, 2 new facilities will be built each year. In addition, one existing facility was estimated to be reconstructed in each year, including each of 3 years prior to the compliance date. ( c) Person hours per occurrence were computed in 1997 based on the performance specification costs to certify CMS ($ 500) divided by the composite hourly labor rate at that time. Facilities will each conduct 6 initial CMS performance evaluations ( assume 3 for process vents and 3 for wastewater per facility). ( d) Assumes there will be growth of 2 percent per year ( 2 facilities) and that 1 existing facility will be reconstructed each year. ( e) Assumes 10 percent of existing facilities will implement process changes. ( f) Assumes 50 percent of new or reconstructed facilities will submit a precompliance report with their notificationof construction/ reconstruction. ( g) Assumes 90 percent of facilities will conduct a performance test. ( h) The notification of compliance status includes the report of the performance test and report of the CMS performance evaluation. ( i) Assumes 10 percent of facilities will comply by submitting engineering calculations, design calculations, etc. The notification of compliance status includes those calculations and the report of CMS performance evaluation. ( j) Assumes 10 percent of existing facilities will comply with emissions averaging requirements; new facilities are not allowed to use emissions averaging. ( k) Number of respondents in subsequent years assumes reconstructed sources do not need to develop a new record system; startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; or QA/ QC plan, or retrain personnel. ( l) Assumes 40 hours to develop a record system for recording parameter monitoring information. ( m) Assumes 1 person would require 80 hours to draft the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and then another 20 hours of review/ revisions, for a total of 100 hours. ( n) Assumes 40 hours to develop and review the QA/ QC plan for the CMS. ( o) Assumes 40 hours to train personnel. 15 TABLE 1d. ESTIMATED RECURRENT LABOR AND COST TO INDUSTRY TO IMPLEMENT RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FIRST YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEAR FOLLOWING THE COMPLIANCE DATE ( 2002 AND 2003)

Burden Item ( a) A Person hours per occurrence B Number of occurrences per year C Person hour per respondent per year ( C= A* B) D Respondents First year after the compliance date E Respondents Second year after compliance date Burden hours, first yr after c. d. Burden hours, second yr after c. d.

1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions N/ A B. Required Activities N/ A C. Create Information N/ A D. Gather Existing Information N/ A E. Write Periodic Report ( b) Quarterly report of monitoring exceedances and periods of noncompliance ( c, d) 24 4 96 9 9 864 864 Semiannual reporting of no exceedances ( d, e) 8 2 16 77 79 1232 1264 LDAR Reporting ( f) 94 2 188 86 88 16168 16544 Emissions averaging plan ( g) 20 1 20 8 8 160 160 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions N/ A B. Plan Activities N/ A C. Implement Activities N/ A D. Develop record system N/ A E. Time to enter information Records of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 1.5 52 78 86 88 6708 6864 Records of CMS data Record continuously monitored parameters ( d) 1 320 320 86 88 27520 28160 Enter/ verify information for semiannual reports ( d) 16 2 32 86 88 2752 2816 LDAR Recordkeeping Included in 3E F. Calibration of CMS ( h) 48 1 48 86 88 4128 4224 G. Time to train personnel N/ A H. Time for audits N/ A Total 59532 60896 ( a) See attachment 2 for further explanation of respondent activities. ( b) There were an estimated 78 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP at the time of rulemaking. Assuming 2 percent growth per year, 2 new facilities will be built each year. ( c) Assumes 10 percent of facilities will have exceedances and periods of noncompliance. ( d) This entry includes process vent, storage tank, and wastewater monitoring and inspections. ( e) Assumes 90 percent of facilities will have no exceedances. ( f) According to EPA guidance, annual recordkeeping and reporting costs for the Reg Neg LDAR program are estimated to be 40 percent of initial and annual monitoring and repair labor. In 1997 this was computed at $ 9,246 per facility ( 40% x $ 9,246 = $ 3,698 per facility). Person hours per occurrence were based on this cost divided by the composite hourly labor rate at that time. Both recordkeeping costs and reporting costs are included in this entry. ( g) Assumes 10 percent of existing facilities will comply with emissions averaging requirements; new sources are not allowed to use emissions averaging. ( h) Assumes calibration of the CMS will require 8 hours per year for each monitor. Assuming a total of 6 monitoring parameters for each facility, a total of 48 hours per year per facility is required. 16 TABLE 2a. ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL LABOR AND COST TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO IMPLEMENT REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FIRST YEAR A B C Activity EPA Hours per operation Operations per year Technical person hours per year ( C= A* B) ( a)

1. Attend performance test ( b, c, d) 40 1 40 2. Attend repeat performance test ( e) 40 0 0 3. Attend performance evaluation test 2 4 8 ( certification of CMS) ( b, d) 4. Litigation ( f) 2,080 1 2080 5. Report review A. Review of notification of construction/ reconstruction ( g, h) 2 3 6 B. Review of notification of process changes ( g, h) 8 0 0 C. Review of notification of anticipated startup ( g, h) 2 3 6 D. Review of actual startup notification ( g, h) 2 3 6 E. Review of notification of applicability of standard ( b) 2 2 4 F. Review of precompliance report ( i) 4 40 160 G. Review of notification of performance test ( b, c) 2 70 140 H. Review of notification of CMS performance evaluation ( b) 2 78 156 I. Review of notification of compliance status  With performance test ( j) 40 3 120  Without performance test ( j) 40 0 0 K. Review of emissions averaging plan ( l) 20 0 0 L. Review of semi annual reporting of no exceedances ( m) 2 7 14 M. Review of quarterly report of monitoring 8 2 16 exceedances and periods of noncompliance ( n) TOTAL BURDEN 2756 COST ( SALARY) @$ 39.26/ hr ( a) $ 108,201 TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR TEST ATTENDED ( o) = ( 1 person * 2 facilities/ yr * 2 days/ facility * $ 50 per diem) + ($ 400/ round trip * 1 round trips/ yr) = $ 1000 TOTAL COST = TOTAL COST ( SALARY) + TRAVEL EXPENSES $ 109,201 ( a) Assume technical rate of GS 10/ 1 plus 110% OVH ( b) In 1997 there were an estimated 78 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP. Assuming 2 percent growth per year, 2 new facilities will be built each year. ( c) Assume 90 percent of facilities will conduct a performance test. ( d) Assumes EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of these tests ( because this is a fraction of a facility, assume 1 facility). ( e) Assumes that 5 percent of facilities will repeat the performance test and that EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of the repeat tests. ( f) Assumes 1 percent of facilities will be involved in litigation ( because this is a fraction of a facility, assume 1 facility). ( g) One time only cost. This cost will occur prior to the first year, but it is included in first year cost. ( h) Assumes 10 percent of existing facilities will require process changes and assume there will be a growth of 2 percent per year. ( i) Assumes 50 percent of facilities will submit a precompliance report. ( j) Assumes 90 percent of facilities will conduct a performance test. The notification of compliance status includes the performance test report and the report of CMS performance evaluation. ( k) Assumes 10 percent of facilities will comply by submitting engineering calculations, design calculations, etc. The notification of compliance status includes these calculations and the report of CMS performance evaluation. ( l) Assumes 10 percent of existing facilities will comply with emissions averaging requirements; new sources are not allowed to use emissions averaging. ( m) Assumes 90 percent of facilities will have no exceedances. 3 facilities reporting twice per year is 6 operations. ( n) Assumes 10 percent of facilities will have excess emissions and periods of noncompliance. No facilities reporting 4 times per year is 0 operations. ( o) Tests attended include 1 initial performance test, no repeat performance tests, for a total of 1 tests attended ( assumes CMS performance evaluations occur at the same time as the performance tests). 17 TABLE 2b. ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL LABOR AND COST TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO IMPLEMENT REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FIRST YEAR A B C Activity EPA Hours per operation Operations per year Technical person hours per year ( C= A* B) ( a)

1. Attend performance test ( b, c, d) 40 7 280 2. Attend repeat performance test ( e) 40 0 0 3. Attend performance evaluation test 2 8 16 ( certification of CMS) ( b, d) 4. Litigation ( f) 2,080 1 2080 5. Report review A. Review of notification of construction/ reconstruction ( g, h) 2 3 6 B. Review of notification of process changes ( g, h) 8 8 64 C. Review of notification of anticipated startup ( g, h) 2 3 6 D. Review of actual startup notification ( g, h) 2 3 6 E. Review of notification of applicability of standard ( b) 2 2 4 F. Review of precompliance report ( i) 4 1 4 G. Review of notification of performance test ( b, c) 2 3 6 H. Review of notification of CMS performance evaluation ( b) 2 3 6 I. Review of notification of compliance status  With performance test ( j) 40 69 2760  Without performance test ( j) 40 8 320 K. Review of emissions averaging plan ( l) 20 8 160 L. Review of semi annual reporting of no exceedances ( m) 2 77 154 M. Review of quarterly report of monitoring 8 9 72 exceedances and periods of noncompliance ( n) TOTAL BURDEN 5944 COST ( SALARY) @$ 39.26/ hr ( a) $ 233,361 TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR TEST ATTENDED ( o) = ( 1 person * 15 facilities/ yr * 2 days/ facility * $ 50 per diem) + ($ 400/ round trip * 1 round trips/ yr) = $ 7500 TOTAL COST = TOTAL COST ( SALARY) + TRAVEL EXPENSES $ 240,861 ( a) Assume technical rate of GS 10/ 1 plus 110% OVH ( b) In 1997 there were an estimated 78 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP. Assuming 2 percent growth per year, 2 new facilities will be built each year. ( c) Assume 90 percent of facilities will conduct a performance test. ( d) Assumes EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of these tests ( because this is a fraction of a facility, assume 1 facility). ( e) Assumes that 5 percent of facilities will repeat the performance test and that EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of the repeat tests. ( f) Assumes 1 percent of facilities will be involved in litigation ( because this is a fraction of a facility, assume 1 facility). ( g) One time only cost. This cost will occur prior to the first year, but it is included in first year cost. ( h) Assumes 10 percent of existing facilities will require process changes and assume there will be a growth of 2 percent per year. ( i) Assumes 50 percent of facilities will submit a precompliance report. ( j) Assumes 90 percent of facilities will conduct a performance test. The notification of compliance status includes the performance test report and the report of CMS performance evaluation. ( k) Assumes 10 percent of facilities will comply by submitting engineering calculations, design calculations, etc. The notification of compliance status includes these calculations and the report of CMS performance evaluation. ( l) Assumes 10 percent of existing facilities will comply with emissions averaging requirements; new sources are not allowed to use emissions averaging. ( m) Assumes 90 percent of facilities will have no exceedances. 3 facilities reporting twice per year is 6 operations. ( n) Assumes 10 percent of facilities will have excess emissions and periods of noncompliance. No facilities reporting 4 times per year is 0 operations. ( o) Tests attended include 1 initial performance test, no repeat performance tests, for a total of 1 tests attended ( assumes CMS performance evaluations occur at the same time as the performance tests). 18 TABLE 2c. ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL LABOR AND COST TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO IMPLEMENT REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FIRST YEAR A B C Activity EPA Hours per operation Operations per year Technical person hours per year ( C= A* B) ( a)

1. Attend performance test ( b, c, d) 40 1 40 2. Attend repeat performance test ( e) 40 0 0 3. Attend performance evaluation test 2 1 2 ( certification of CMS) ( b, d) 4. Litigation ( f) 2,080 1 2080 5. Report review A. Review of notification of construction/ reconstruction ( g, h) 2 3 6 B. Review of notification of process changes ( g, h) 8 8 64 C. Review of notification of anticipated startup ( g, h) 2 3 6 D. Review of actual startup notification ( g, h) 2 3 6 E. Review of notification of applicability of standard ( b) 2 2 4 F. Review of precompliance report ( i) 4 1 4 G. Review of notification of performance test ( b, c) 2 3 6 H. Review of notification of CMS performance evaluation ( b) 2 3 6 I. Review of notification of compliance status  With performance test ( j) 40 3 120  Without performance test ( j) 40 0 0 K. Review of emissions averaging plan ( l) 20 8 160 L. Review of semi annual reporting of no exceedances ( m) 2 79 158 M. Review of quarterly report of monitoring 8 9 72 exceedances and periods of noncompliance ( n) TOTAL BURDEN 2734 COST ( SALARY) @$ 39.26/ hr ( a) $ 107,337 TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR TEST ATTENDED ( o) = ( 1 person * 2 facilities/ yr * 2 days/ facility * $ 50 per diem) + ($ 400/ round trip* 1 round trips/ yr) = $ 7500 TOTAL COST = TOTAL COST ( SALARY) + TRAVEL EXPENSES $ 108,337 ( a) Assume technical rate of GS 10/ 1 plus 110% OVH ( b) In 1997 there were an estimated 78 existing major source facilities subject to the NESHAP. Assuming 2 percent growth per year, 2 new facilities will be built each year. ( c) Assume 90 percent of facilities will conduct a performance test. ( d) Assumes EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of these tests ( because this is a fraction of a facility, assume 1 facility). ( e) Assumes that 5 percent of facilities will repeat the performance test and that EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of the repeat tests. ( f) Assumes 1 percent of facilities will be involved in litigation ( because this is a fraction of a facility, assume 1 facility). ( g) One time only cost. This cost will occur prior to the first year, but it is included in first year cost. ( h) Assumes 10 percent of existing facilities will require process changes and assume there will be a growth of 2 percent per year. ( i) Assumes 50 percent of facilities will submit a precompliance report. ( j) Assumes 90 percent of facilities will conduct a performance test. The notification of compliance status includes the performance test report and the report of CMS performance evaluation. ( k) Assumes 10 percent of facilities will comply by submitting engineering calculations, design calculations, etc. The notification of compliance status includes these calculations and the report of CMS performance evaluation. ( l) Assumes 10 percent of existing facilities will comply with emissions averaging requirements; new sources are not allowed to use emissions averaging. ( m) Assumes 90 percent of facilities will have no exceedances. 3 facilities reporting twice per year is 6 operations. ( n) Assumes 10 percent of facilities will have excess emissions and periods of noncompliance. No facilities reporting 4 times per year is 0 operations. ( o) Tests attended include 1 initial performance test, no repeat performance tests, for a total of 1 tests attended ( assumes CMS performance evaluations occur at the same time as the performance tests). 19 PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in the data collection associated with this regulation. ATTACHMENT 1 Source Data and Information Requirements SUMMARY OF RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS Requirements Regulation Reference Control device operating parameters to monitor and record 63.1366( b)( 1) and 63.1367( b)( 1) and ( b)( 5)

Monitoring and records for alternative standard 63.10( c), 63.1366( b)( 5), 63.1367( a)( 4), and 63.1367( b)( 3)

Monitoring and records for process vent annual emission limits standard 63.1366( c) and 63.1367( b)( 4)

Monitoring and records for equipment leaks 63.1366( d) and 63.1367( c)

Monitoring and records for heat exchanger systems 63.1362( f), 63.1366( e), and 63.1367( e)

Monitoring and records for pollution prevention 63.1366( f) and 63.1367( b)( 2)

Monitoring and records for emissions averaging 63.1366( g) and 63.1367( d)

Records of process operating parameters 63.1367( b)( 6) and ( b)( 7)

Applicability determinations 63.10( b)( 3) and 63.1367( a)( 2)

Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 63.6( e)( 3) and 63.1367( a)( 3)

Application for approval of construction or reconstruction 63.5( d) and 63.1367( a)( 5)

Records for vapor collection systems and closed vent systems 63.1367( f)

SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Requirements Regulation Reference Initial notification 63.9 and 63.1368( b)

Application for approval of construction or reconstruction 63.5( d) and 63.1368 ( c)

Notification of CMS performance evaluation 63.8( e)( 2) and 63.1368( d)

Notification of performance test and test plan 63.7( c) and 63.1368( m)

Request for extension of compliance 63.1364( a)( 2) and 63.1368( n)

Precompliance report 63.1368( e)

Request for approval to use alternative monitoring parameters 63.8( f), 63.1366( b)( 4), and 63.1368( e)( l)

Notification of compliance status report 63.9( h) and 63.1368( f)

Periodic reports of excess emissions and noncompliance 63.10( e)( 3) and 63.1368( g)

Notification of process change 63.1368( h)

Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports 63.10( d)( 5) and 63.1368( i)

Equipment leaks reports 63.1363( h) and 63.1368( j)

Emissions averaging reports 63.1368( k)

Heat exchanger system reports 63.1368( l) ATTACHMENT 2 Description of Respondent Activities Description of Respondent Activities ( 1) Read Rule and Instructions are the activities, less training, which involve comprehending the provisions in the standard and understanding how they apply to the respective emission points at a facility.

( 2) Plan Activities represents such burdens as design, redesign, scheduling, and selecting methods of compliance. The costs for planning and selection are included in the capital costs for the performance test, as explained in ( 4) below.

( 3) Training represents activities involved in communicating specific definitions, compliance limits, and other requirements such as recordkeeping, monitoring, and reporting. An average facility may elect to provide classroom instructions for all workers directly impacted by the requirements. The standard does not require specific training itself.

( 4) Create Information are the activities involving testing, retesting, establishing operating range parameters and analyzing point by point applicability. Because respondents are expected to hire outside contractors to conduct the performance tests, these costs are not included as labor and cost burden in this table; the costs associated with the performance test are capital costs and are discussed in the text.

( 5) Gather Information, Monitor, and Inspect are the activities involving physical inspections of equipment, collection of monitored data and other related activities. This estimate does not include the monitoring of equipment leak components. The cost for monitoring equipment leak components is included as part of the cost of the leak detection and repair program.

( 6) Reporting represents the activities normally associated with filling out forms. Since the standard requires no standard forms, these activities relate to the preparing of formal reports and cover letters as appropriate.

( 7) Recordkeeping are the activities that involve analysis of the information collected for accuracy, compliance, and appropriate records required as a result; software translation, duplication, or archival processes normally associated with data management and storage common; and the management life cycle of records, from the time they are filed and boxed up to the time they are disposed of.

TOTAL BURDEN AND COST is the sum of technical hours and the costs associated with these hours.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54149-54152]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28059; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-13-AD;
Amendment 39-17526; AD 2013-15-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2012-10-12 for
all RR RB211-Trent 553-61, 553A2-61, 556-61, 556A2-61, 556B-61, 556B2-
61, 560-61, 560A2-61, 768-60, 772-60, 772B-60, 875-17, 877-17, 884-17,
884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17, and 895-17 turbofan engines. AD 2012-10-12
required inspecting the intermediate-pressure (IP) compressor rotor
shaft rear balance land for cracks. We are issuing this AD to require
inspections of the IP compressor rotor shaft, as required by AD 2012-
10-12, to add on-wing

inspections for the Trent 500 engines, and to add on-wing and in-shop
inspections for the Trent 900 engines. This AD was prompted by
detection of a crack in a Trent 500 IP compressor rotor shaft rear
balance land during a shop visit. Further engineering evaluation, done
by RR, concluded that the cracking may also exist in Trent 900 engines.
We are issuing this AD to detect cracking on the IP compressor rotor
shaft rear balance land, which could lead to uncontained engine failure
and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective October 8, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) of certain publication listed in the AD as of October
8, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the IBR of certain
other publications listed in this AD as of June 29, 2012 (77 FR 31176,
May 25, 2012).

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce
plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ;
phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-245418; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Zink, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2012-10-12, Amendment 39-17061 (77 FR 31176,
May 25, 2012). AD 2012-10-12 applied to the specified products. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2013 (78 FR 17300).
The NPRM proposed to require inspections of the IP compressor rotor
shaft, as required by AD 2012-10-12, on-wing inspections for the Trent
500 engines, and on-wing and in-shop inspections for the Trent 900
engines.

Comments

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

Request To Not Include Revision Level of Service Bulletin (SB)

    Texas Aero Engine Service LLC (TAESL) requested that we not include
the revision of the SB or that we include ``or later revision'' in the
AD. The commenter's justification for this request is that the SBs are
revised often.
    We do not agree. The SBs contain unique methods that require IBR.
We do not know how a SB will be revised in the future; therefore, we
cannot use ``or later revision''. Any future revisions can be addressed
using paragraph (m) of this AD. We did not change the AD.

Request To Include an Alternate Method of Compliance

    TAESL requested that RR SB No. RB.211-72-AG401 be included as an
alternative means of compliance and that the requirement to perform an
eddy current inspection (ECI), on engines which have had the new
balance weights fitted using RR SB No. RB.211-72-AG401, be removed. The
justification for this request is that the SB describes procedures for
replacing the existing balance weights with new balance weights.
    We do not agree. The unsafe condition was identified in the
existing balance weights that were installed. RR SB No. RB.211-72-AG401
introduces the new balance weights. In paragraph (j) of this AD we
mandate removal of the existing balance weights as terminating action,
as opposed to installation of the new balance weights. We did not IBR
RR SB No. RB.211-72-AG401 because there could be future versions of the
balance weights that would also be acceptable. We did not change the
AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 17300, March 21, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 17300, March 21, 2013).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 136 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 14
hours per engine to perform the required inspections. The average labor
rate is $85 per hour. Replacement parts are estimated to cost about
$2,271 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the
AD on U.S. operators to be $470,696.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2012-10-12, Amendment 39-17061 (77 FR 31176, May 25, 2012), and adding
the following new AD:

2013-15-10 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-17526; Docket No. FAA-2007-
28059; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-13-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 8, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2012-10-12, Amendment 39-17061 (77 FR
31176, May 25, 2012).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 553-61,
553A2-61, 556-61, 556A2-61, 556B-61, 556B2-61, 560-61, 560A2-61,
768-60, 772-60, 772B-60, 875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17,
892B-17, 895-17, 970-84, 970B-84, 972-84, 972B-84, 977-84, 977B-84,
and 980-84 turbofan engines.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by detection of a crack in a Trent 500
intermediate-pressure (IP) compressor rotor shaft rear balance land
with follow-on RR engineering evaluation concluding that cracking
may also exist in Trent 900 engines. We are issuing this AD to
detect cracking on the IP compressor rotor shaft rear balance land,
which could lead to uncontained engine failure and damage to the
airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) RB211-Trent 700 Series Engines--Rear Balance Land Inspections

    (1) Within 625 cycles-in-service (CIS) after June 29, 2012, or
before the next flight after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, borescope inspect the IP compressor rotor
shaft rear balance land. Use RB211 Trent 700 Series Propulsion
System Non-Modification Alert Service Bulletin (NMASB) No. RB.211-
72-AG270, Revision 4, dated March 21, 2011, sections 3.A.(2)(a)
through 3.A.(2)(c) and 3.A.(3)(a) through 3.A.(3)(c) for in-shop
procedures, or 3.B.(2)(a) through 3.B.(2)(c) and 3.B.(4)(a) through
3.B.(4)(c) for on-wing procedures, to do the inspection.
    (2) Thereafter, repeat the inspection within every 625 cycles-
since-last inspection (CSLI). You may count CSLI from the last
borescope inspection or the last eddy current inspection (ECI),
whichever occurred last.
    (3) At each shop visit after the effective date of this AD,
perform an ECI and visually inspect the IP compressor rotor shaft
rear balance land, and visually inspect the balance weights. Use
RB211 Trent 700 and Trent 800 Series Propulsion Systems NMASB No.
RB.211-72-AG085, Revision 2, dated July 7, 2011, sections 3.A.
through 3.C., to do the inspections.

(g) RB211-Trent 800 Series Engines--Rear Balance Land Inspections

    (1) Within 475 CIS after June 29, 2012, or before the next
flight after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
borescope inspect the IP compressor rotor shaft rear balance land.
Use RB211 Trent 800 Series Propulsion System NMASB No. RB.211-72-
AG264, Revision 5, dated March 21, 2011, sections 3.A.(2)(b) through
3.A.(2)(c) and 3.A.(3)(a) through 3.A.(3)(c) for in-shop procedures,
or 3.B.(2)(a) through 3.B.(2)(c) and 3.B.(4)(a) through 3.B.(4)(c)
for on-wing procedures, to do the inspection.
    (2) Thereafter, repeat the inspection within every 475 CSLI. You
may count CSLI from the last borescope inspection or the last ECI,
whichever occurred last.
    (3) At each shop visit, perform an ECI and visually inspect the
IP compressor rotor shaft rear balance land, and visually inspect
the balance weights. Use RB211 Trent 700 and Trent 800 Series
Propulsion Systems NMASB No. RB.211-72-AG085, Revision 2, dated July
7, 2011, sections 3.A. through 3.C. and 3.D.(3) to do the
inspections.

(h) RB211-Trent 500 Series Engines--Rear Balance Land Inspections

    (1) Within 340 CIS after the effective date of this AD,
borescope inspect the IP compressor rotor shaft rear balance land.
Use RB211 Trent 500 Series Propulsion Systems NMASB No. RB.211-72-
AH058, dated December 13, 2012, sections 3.A.(2)(a) through
3.A.(2)(c), 3.A.(3)(a) through 3.A.(3)(d), and 3.A.(5)(a) through
3.A.(5)(c) for on-wing procedures, to do the inspection.
    (2) Thereafter, repeat the inspection within every 340 CSLI. You
may count CSLI from the last borescope inspection or the last ECI,
whichever occurred last.
    (3) At each shop visit, perform an ECI and visually inspect the
IP compressor rotor shaft rear balance land, and visually inspect
the balance weights. Use RB211 Trent 500 and Trent 900 Series
Propulsion Systems Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No.
RB.211-72-G448, Revision 3, dated July 7, 2011, sections 3.D.(4)
through 3.D.(5), 3.D.(6)(f) through 3.D.(7)(w), 3.D.(8)(f) through
3.D.(8)(w), 3.D.(11), 3.D.(12), and 3.D.(e) to do the inspections.

(i) RB211-Trent 900 Series Engines--Rear Balance Land Inspections

    (l) Within 280 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD, borescope inspect the IP compressor rotor shaft rear balance
land. Use RB211 Trent 900 Series Propulsion Systems NMASB No.
RB.211-72-AH059, dated December 11, 2012, sections 3.A.(2)(a)
through 3.A.(2)(c), 3.A.(3)(a) through 3.A.(3)(d), 3.A.(5)(a)
through 3.A.(5)(c), and 3.D.(e) to do the inspection.
    (2) Thereafter, repeat the inspection within every 280 CSLI. You
may count from the last borescope inspection or the last ECI,
whichever occurred last.
    (3) At each shop visit after the effective date of this AD,
perform an ECI and visually inspect the IP compressor rotor shaft
rear balance land, and visually inspect the balance weights. Use
RB211 Trent 500 and Trent 900 Series Propulsion Systems NMSB No.
RB.211-72-G448, Revision 3, dated July 7, 2011, sections 3.D.(4)
through 3.D.(5), 3.D.(6)(f) through 3.D.(7)(w), 3.D.(8)(f) through
3.D.(8)(w), 3.D.(11), and 3.D.(12), to do the inspection.

(j) Mandatory Termination Action for RB211-Trent 700 and RB211-Trent
800 Engines

    (1) For RB211-Trent 700 engines. At the next shop visit in which
any level of inspection or strip is scheduled to be carried out on
the IP compressor, remove the existing IP compressor balance
weights.
    (2) For RB211-Trent 800 engines. At the next shop visit in which
any level of inspection or strip is scheduled to be carried out on
the IP compressor, remove the existing IP compressor balance
weights.
    (3) Once you have removed the balance weights, do not re-install
them on any IP compressor shaft rear balance land.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) For RB211-Trent 700 series engines:
    (i) If you borescope inspected your RB211-Trent 700 series
engine using RB211 Trent 700 Series Propulsion System NMASB No.
RB.211-72-AG270, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2009, or Revision 2,
dated December 21, 2010, or Revision 3, dated February 25, 2011,
before the effective date of this AD, you have satisfied the
requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (ii) If you performed the ECI and visual inspection of your
RB211-Trent 700 series engine using RB211 Trent 700 and Trent 800
Series Propulsion Systems NMASB No. RB.211-72-AG085, Revision 1,
dated September 27, 2010, before the effective date of this AD, you
have satisfied the ECI and visual inspections required by paragraph

(f)(3) of this AD. You are still required to perform the repetitive
inspections required by paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD.
    (2) For RB211-Trent 800 series engines:
    (i) If you borescope inspected your RB211-Trent 800 series
engine using RB211 Trent 800 Series Propulsion System NMASB No.
RB.211-72-AG264, Revision 3, dated December 21, 2010, or Revision 4,
dated February 25, 2011, before the effective date of this AD, you
have satisfied the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (ii) If you performed the ECI and in-shop visual inspection of
your RB211-Trent 800 series engine using RB211 Trent 700 and Trent
800 Series Propulsion Systems NMASB No. RB.211-72-AG085, Revision 1,
dated September 27, 2010, before the effective date of this AD, you
have satisfied the ECI and visual inspections required by paragraph
(g)(3) of this AD. You are still required to perform the repetitive
inspections required by paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this AD.
    (3) For RB211-Trent 500 and 900 series engines:
    (i) If you borescope inspected your RB211-Trent 500 series
engine using RB211 Trent 500, 700 and 800 Series Propulsion Systems
NMASB No. RB.211-72-AF260, Revision 4, dated July 28, 2009, or using
RB211 Trent 500 and Trent 900 Series Propulsion Systems NMSB No.
RB.211-72-G448, Revision 2, dated December 23, 2010 before the
effective date of this AD, you have satisfied the ECIs required by
paragraph (h)(3) of this AD.
    (ii) If you performed the ECI and in-shop visual inspection of
your RB211-Trent 500 series engine using RB211 Trent 500 and Trent
900 Series Propulsion Systems NMSB No. RB.211-72-G448, Revision 2,
dated December 23, 2010, before the effective date of this AD, you
have satisfied the ECI and visual inspections required by paragraph
(h)(3) of this AD. You are still required to perform the repetitive
inspections required by paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this AD.
    (4) For RB211-Trent 900 series engines:
    (i) If you borescope inspected your RB211-Trent 900 series
engine using RB211 Trent 500 and Trent 900 Series Propulsion Systems
NMSB No. RB.211-72-G448, Revision 2, dated December 23, 2010, before
the effective date of this AD, you have satisfied the requirements
of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
    (ii) If you performed the ECI and in-shop visual inspection of
your RB211-Trent 900 series engine using RB211 Trent 500 and Trent
900 Series Propulsion Systems NMSB No. RB.211-72-G448, Revision 2,
dated December 23, 2010, before the effective date of this AD, you
have satisfied the ECI and visual inspections required by paragraph
(i)(3) of this AD. You are still required to perform the repetitive
inspections required by paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3) of this AD.

(l) Definitions

    For the purpose of this AD, a shop visit is defined as
introduction of an engine into the shop and disassembly sufficient
to expose the IP compressor module rear face.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Frederick Zink,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency, AD 2013-0002,
dated January 4, 2013, for more information. You may examine this AD
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2007-28059-0022.

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
October 8, 2013.
    (i) Rolls-Royce plc Non-Modification Alert Service Bulletin No.
RB211 Trent 900 Series Propulsion Systems NMASB No. RB.211-72-AH059,
dated December 11, 2012.
    (ii) Rolls-Royce plc Non-Modification Alert Service Bulletin No.
RB211 Trent 500 Series Propulsion Systems RB.211-72-AH058, dated
December 13, 2012.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
June 29, 2012, (77 FR 31176, May 25, 2012).
    (i) Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 700 Series Propulsion System
Non-Modification Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AG270,
Revision 4, dated March 21, 2011.
    (ii) Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 700 and 800 Series Propulsion
Systems Non-Modification Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AG085,
Revision 2, dated July 7, 2011.
    (iii) Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 800 Series Propulsion System
Non-Modification Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AG264,
Revision 5, dated March 21, 2011.
    (iv) Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 500 Series Propulsion System
Non-Modification Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AF260,
Revision 5, dated July 7, 2011.
    (v) Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 500 and 900 Series Propulsion
Systems Non-Modification Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-G448,
Revision 3, dated July 7, 2011.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby,
England, DE248BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-
245418; Internet: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may also view this service information that is IBR at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 22, 2013.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-21108 Filed 8-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39087]
[DOCID:fr11jy06-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-408-000]

Reliant Energy Service, Inc. and CenterPoint Resources Corp.,
Complainants v. Kern River Gas Transmission Company, Respondent; Notice
of Complaint

July 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on June 30, 2006, Reliant Energy Services, Inc
(RES) and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC) submitted a
complaint against Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River). RES
states that Kern River's insistence that CERC be required to maintain a
guarantee equal to the value of the reservation charges for the entire
contract term of all of RES's service agreements is unreasonable and
contrary to clear Commission policy. Complainants further state that
Kern River's demand unduly discriminates against RES in favor of other
similarly-situated shippers, that have been permitted by Kern River to
post other forms of credit support. The Complainants requests the
Commission to order Kern River to allow RES to post substitute forms of
security in place of what was initially a guarantee provided to Kern
River in 2001 by CERC's predecessor, Reliant Energy Resources
Corporation.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The
Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on
or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to
intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 20, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-10813 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P