[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 72016]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27499]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-621, OMB Control No. 3235-0672, (Electronic Data
Collection System); SEC File No. 270-625, OMB Control No. 3235-0686,
(Form TCR)]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extensions:
    Electronic Data Collection System, Form TCR

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit an
extension for these two current collections of information to the
Office of Management and Budget for approval, and to consolidate both
collections of information within OMB Control No. 3235-0672.
    The Commission invites comment on updates to its Electronic Data
Collection System database (the Database), which will support
information provided by members of the public who would like to file an
online tip, complaint or referral (TCR) to the Commission. The Database
will be a web based e-filed dynamic report based on technology that
pre-populates and establishes a series of questions based on the data
that the individual enters. The individual will then complete specific
information on the subject(s) and nature of the suspicious activity,
using the data elements appropriate to the type of complaint or
subject. The information collection is voluntary. The public interface
to the Database will be available using the agency's website,
www.sec.gov. The Commission estimates that it takes a complainant, on
average, 30 minutes to submit a TCR through the Database. Based on the
receipt of an average of approximately 28,000 annual TCRs for the past
three fiscal years, the Commission estimates that the annual reporting
burden is 14,000 hours.
    The Commission further invites comment on updates to Form TCR,
which is a hard copy form adopted by the Commission in 2011.\1\ Form
TCR may be submitted by whistleblowers who wish to provide information
to the Commission and its staff regarding potential violations of the
federal securities laws. The Commission estimates that it takes a
whistleblower, on average, one and one half hours to complete Form TCR.
Based on the receipt of an average of approximately 560 annual Form TCR
submissions for the past three fiscal years, the Commission estimates
that the annual reporting burden of Form TCR is 840 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Implementation of the Whistleblower Provisions of Section
21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Release No. 34-64545;
File No. S7-33-10 (adopted May 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted
in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your
written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer,
Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John R. Pezzullo, 100 F St. NE,
Washington DC 20549; or send an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: December 15, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-27499 Filed 12-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41623-41624]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16733]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Office of
Dispute Resolution Procedures for Protests and Contract Disputes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on May 2, 2014, vol. 79, no. 85, page 25172. 14 CFR part 17
sets forth procedures for filing solicitation protests and contract
claims in the FAA's Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition. The
regulations seek factual and legal information from protesters or
claimants primarily through written submissions.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 15, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0632.
    Title: Office of Dispute Resolution Procedures for Protests and
Contact Disputes.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 14 CFR 17.15 and 17.25 provide the procedures for
filing protests and contract claims with the Office of Dispute
Resolution for Acquisition. The regulations seek factual and legal
information from protesters or claimants primarily through written
submissions. The information sought by the regulations is used by the
ODRA, as well as the opposing parties: (1) To gain a clear
understanding as to the facts and the law underlying the dispute; and
(2) to provide a basis for applying dispute resolution techniques.
    Respondents: Approximately 45 protestors or claimants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 20.5 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 923 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 10, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer. IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-16733 Filed 7-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3224-3225]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting
on Thursday, January 21, 2016, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC. The
meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public.
Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at
9:00 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will
be webcast on the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.
    On December 23, 2015, the Commission issued notice of the Committee
meeting (Release No. 33-10000), indicating that the meeting is open to
the public (except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an
administrative work session during lunch), and inviting the public to
submit written comments to the

Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a quorum of
the Commission may attend the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes: remarks from Commissioners; a
discussion of fixed income market structure and pre-trade price
transparency; a discussion of a draft letter from the Investor as Owner
subcommittee regarding Financial Accounting Standards Board proposed
amendments to the Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts and Notes
to Financial Statements concerning disclosure materiality; an update on
crowdfunding rules; a discussion of NASDAQ listing standards--
shareholder approval rules; subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic
administrative work session during lunch.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 14, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01129 Filed 1-15-16; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


USGS (2009). 2005 Minerals Yearbook: Cement. U.S. Geological Survey (Table 17), pp. 16.21.   HYPERLINK "http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/myb1-2007-cemen .pdf"  http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/myb1-2007-cemen. pdf .

Worrell, E.; Galitsky, C. (2004). Energy Efficiency Improvement Opportunities for Cement Making; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-54036, Jan 2004. An ENERGY STAR® Guide for Energy and Plant Managers, http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/821915-Re2kcK/native/.

Yates, J.R. et al. (2003). CemStar Process and Technology for Lowering Greenhouse Gases and Other Emissions while Increasing Cement Production.  HYPERLINK "http://www.hatch.ca/Environment_Community/Sustainable_Development/Proje cts/Copy%20of%20CemStar-Process-final4-30-03.pdf" http://www.hatch.ca/Environment_Community/Sustainable_Development/Projec ts/Copy%20of%20CemStar-Process-final4-30-03.pdf   accessed February 27, 2009.

Model Calibration

Large techno-economic models of ISIS framework size require model calibration as they utilize extensive amount of data which comes from different sources. This chapter outlines calibration methodology that was used, discusses data used for calibration, presents calibration results, and gives further recommendations.

Calibration Methodology

Calibration methodology utilizes the concept of calibration constant. The calibration constant has been developed to account for possible errors in costs. The value of calibration constant, calconst(i), is set by trial and error during calibration.  The objective of the trial and error approach is to minimize the absolute difference in the reported and model-predicted prices (which are marginal values of the supply equation) for each USGS district.

In the first step of calibration, the model is set to run for 2005-2007 by making appropriate changes in the input “Policy” worksheet, and GAMS input files. The import quantities are then adjusted equal to reported import quantity for each of the import district, except for those of Mexico and Canada.

In the next step, impact of changing the calibration constant is monitored. This impact of the calibration constant is assessed on estimated production quantities to keep the difference between reported and model predicted production values within reasonable limits. The calibration constant modifies each kiln’s variable cost of production. “Calibration” worksheet within the Inputs workbook has values of calibration constant assigned for each USGS district. Finally, in the input GAMS file, the values are assigned for a given USGS district to each of the kilns located in that USGS district.

The model is first calibrated for year 2005, to obtain values of the calibration parameter calconst(i) for the year. Next, calconst(i) values for 2005 are used as starting point and obtain values for the same parameter for 2006. Similarly, the process is repeated to obtain the values for 2007. Then, an average of the calconst(i) values over the three years is taken and used for the future model runs. Current values of the parameter Calconst(i) being used in the model runs can be found in the worksheet “Calibration” of the “ISIS_Inputs.xls” workbook.

Calibration is a dynamic process, and it is recommended that model calibration be performed periodically. In this fashion, any available new production, imports, or price data could be utilized in t he model..

Data for Calibration

Production quantities in various USGS production districts, import levels in the import districts and reported cement prices for USGS districts are the key quantities used for calibration of the model. Reported data for years 2005, 2006 and 2007 were used to calibrate the model and obtain values of appropriate calibration parameters.

Cement Prices in USGS Districts

Reported cement prices in various USGS districts are shown in Table 4-1 for years 2005 through 2007. For a given year, the reported cement price shows significant variation across USGS districts. For most districts the cement price has increased over the three year period. USGS districts assignation is the location of the reporting production facilities.

Cement Production in USGS Districts

Reported cement production in various USGS districts is shown in Table 4-2 for years 2005 through 2007. For a given year, the reported cement production shows significant variation across USGS districts. Generally production dropped from 2005 to 2007, due to a decrease in demand resulting from the economic downturn.

Cement Imports by Import Districts

Reported cement import quantity in various import districts is shown in Table 4-3 for years 2005 through 2007. For a given year, the reported cement imports show a significant variation across import districts. Generally imports dropped from 2005 to 2007, due to a decrease in demand resulting from the economic downturn. New Orleans (LA), San Francisco (CA) and Tampa (FL) suffered large drops in the quantities of cement imported in 2007 compared to that in 2005.

Results of Calibration

Reported and calculated values of cement prices by USGS district are shown for years 2005, 2006, and 2007 in Table 4-4, Table 4-5, and Table 4-6, respectively. As can be seen from these tables, in most of the districts reported and calculated cement prices are within 10% range, whereas in a few they are higher. It should be noted that in general the price differentials are smaller in the year 2005 and have increased in 2007. In some USGS districts the reported and calculated prices are different than the model predicted prices due to several factors, including error in reported prices, discontinuities in the transportation matrix, and/or unique factors for some specific markets.

Specifically, the Arizona and New Mexico USGS district has a price differential due to capacity constraints in New Mexico. New Mexico has only two small, very old kilns with a capacity half than the demand in New Mexico. The balance demand is met by kilns in Texas, and imports, which incur a significant transportation cost, resulting in a high price for cement in this market. Similarly, Oregon and Washington USGS District is dependent on supplies from other states. While demand in Washington is met by domestic production, and imports from Canada, Oregon, relies on imports from Canada, and other nearby states, resulting in higher cost.

Generally, individual market prices are within the criteria specified in the QA document, the aberrations are explained by the demand-supply gap and transportation cost. Moreover, root-mean-square values of the price difference for 2005 and 2006 are about 12% and 10% respectively, and 18% for 2007.

Further while calibrating for price, aggregate production level is also tracked to make sure that it is within reasonable limits. The reported and predicted aggregate production levels for 2005-2007 are shown in Table 4-7.

The current set of calibration constant values are averaged over the years of calibration, and are available in the “Calibration” worksheet in the “ISIS_Inputs.xls” workbook.

Table 4-1.	Cement Prices ($/short ton) for USGS Districts

USGS District	2005	2006	2007

Alabama	74.61	81.74	87.09

Illinois	80.29	89.81	91.17

Indiana	72.03	80.04	79.99

Kansas	76.58	86.50	92.87

Maryland	74.76	81.19	80.18

Missouri	78.92	86.61	89.36

Ohio	82.08	90.24	91.47

South Carolina	68.57	80.46	87.54

Maine and New York	80.74	92.53	96.62

Pennsylvania	79.73	89.99	90.85

Michigan and Wisconsin	79.83	84.82	90.12

Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota	78.72	89.83	93.08

Florida	77.56	90.44	95.55

Georgia, Virginia and West Virginia	84.49	95.93	93.60

Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee	84.37	89.81	88.90

Arkansas and Oklahoma	89.00	96.99	97.74

Texas	74.72	85.10	88.33

Arizona and New Mexico	75.76	84.16	86.64

Colorado and Wyoming	82.24	92.90	92.73

Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Utah	83.61	90.26	95.25

California	88.20	99.09	100.24

Oregon and Washington	79.38	90.72	90.72

Table 4-2.	Cement Production (short tons) for Various USGS Districts

USGS District	2005	2006	2007

Alabama	5,647,141	5,733,121	5,578,650

Illinois	3,568,182	3,425,984	3,434,254

Indiana	3,370,868	3,334,492	3,285,999

Kansas	3,182,373	3,310,241	3,039,164

Maryland	2,813,098	2,922,227	3,305,160

Missouri	5,877,524	5,776,111	5,763,479

Ohio	1,086,879	1,064,833	1,010,077

South Carolina	3,601,251	3,654,162	4,057,414

Maine and New York	3,572,591	3,699,357	3,471,388

Pennsylvania	6,931,334	6,631,505	6,239,551

Michigan and Wisconsin	6,171,841	5,993,267	6,047,588

Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota	4,962,606	5,024,335	4,889,607

Florida	6,311,835	6,477,181	6,076,137

Georgia, Virginia and West Virginia	2,612,478	2,696,253	2,528,648

Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee	3,649,753	3,849,271	3,770,250

Arkansas and Oklahoma	3,097,495	2,979,547	2,879,982

Texas	12,737,207	12,510,131	12,038,919

Arizona and New Mexico	3,073,244	2,809,792	2,902,131

Colorado and Wyoming	2,918,920	2,842,861	2,797,240

Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Utah	3,400,630	3,354,333	3,308,645

California	12,747,128	12,069,207	11,941,198

Oregon and Washington	2,175,963	2,101,005	2,103,481

Table 4-3.	Cement Imports (except from Canada and Mexico) for Import Districts (short tons)

Import District	2005	2006	2007

Baltimore, MD	146,300	203,500	18,700

Boston, MA	145,200	50,600	3,300

Buffalo, NY	6,600	4,400	0

Charleston, SC	1,212,200	1,100,000	363,000

Chicago, IL	1,100	1,100	0

Cleveland, OH	0	1,100	0

Columbia-Snake, ID-OR-WA	831,600	1,115,400	1,180,300

Detroit, MI	59,400	0	0

Duluth, MN	0	0	0

El Paso, TX	0	0	0

Great Falls, MT	0	0	0

Houston-Galveston, TX	2,880,900	3,705,900	3,641,000

Laredo, TX	0	0	0

Los Angeles, CA	3,357,200	3,759,800	2,029,500

Miami, FL	2,395,800	2,311,100	980,100

Minneapolis, MN	0	0	0

Mobile, AL	565,400	573,100	0

New Orleans, LA	4,503,400	5,090,800	1,171,500

New York, NY	1,390,400	1,327,700	810,700

Nogales, AZ	0	0	0

Norfolk, VA	767,800	793,100	447,700

Ogdensburg, NY	0	0	0

Pembina, ND	0	0	0

Philadelphia, PA	544,500	665,500	342,100

Portland, ME	0	0	0

Providence, RI	814,000	680,900	509,300

San Diego, CA	620,400	708,400	427,900

San Francisco, CA	2,599,300	3,081,100	1,524,600

Savannah, GA	88,000	204,600	376,200

Seattle, WA	368,500	733,700	644,600

St. Albans, VT	0	0	0

St. Louis, MO	0	0	3,300

Tampa, FL	3,825,800	3,791,700	1,523,500

Wilmington, NC	427,900	416,900	284,900

Table 4-4.	Reported and Calculated Cement Prices in USGS Districts (2005)

%Δ

Alabama	74.61	78	5

Illinois	80.29	83	3

Indiana	72.03	84	16

Kansas	76.58	81	6

Maryland	74.76	74	-1

Missouri	78.92	82	4

Ohio	82.08	83	1

South Carolina	68.57	76	10

Maine and New York	80.74	73	-9

Pennsylvania	79.73	77	-3

Michigan and Wisconsin	79.83	81	2

Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota	78.72	81	3

Florida	77.56	75	-3

Georgia, Virginia and West Virginia	84.49	80	-6

Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee	84.37	81	-4

Arkansas and Oklahoma	89.00	87	-2

Texas	74.72	78	4

Arizona and New Mexico	75.76	105	39

Colorado and Wyoming	82.24	98	20

Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Utah	83.61	70	-16

California	88.20	85	-4

Oregon and Washington	79.38	69	-13

Table 4-5.	Reported and Calculated Cement Prices in USGS Districts (2006)

USGS District	Reported	Calculated	%Δ

Alabama	81.74	85	4

Illinois	89.81	83	-8

Indiana	80.04	85	6

Kansas	86.50	83	-4

Maryland	81.19	80	-1

Missouri	86.61	81	-6

Ohio	90.24	83	-8

South Carolina	80.46	85	6

Maine and New York	92.53	78	-16

Pennsylvania	89.99	80	-11

Michigan and Wisconsin	84.82	80	-6

Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota	89.83	81	-10

Florida	90.44	82	-10

Georgia, Virginia and West Virginia	95.93	86	-10

Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee	89.81	84	-6

Arkansas and Oklahoma	96.99	91	-6

Texas	85.10	81	-4

Arizona and New Mexico	84.16	105	25

Colorado and Wyoming	92.90	100	8

Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Utah	90.26	83	-8

California	99.09	85	-14

Oregon and Washington	90.72	74	-18

Table 4-6.	Reported and Calculated Cement Prices in USGS Districts (2007)

USGS District	Reported	Calculated	%Δ

Alabama	87.09	73	-17

Illinois	91.17	72	-21

Indiana	79.99	75	-7

Kansas	92.87	71	-24

Maryland	80.18	74	-8

Missouri	89.36	71	-21

Ohio	91.47	76	-17

South Carolina	87.54	69	-21

Maine and New York	96.62	74	-24

Pennsylvania	90.85	75	-17

Michigan and Wisconsin	90.12	76	-15

Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota	93.08	71	-23

Florida	95.55	66	-31

Georgia, Virginia and West Virginia	93.60	74	-20

Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee	88.90	71	-20

Arkansas and Oklahoma	97.74	88	-10

Texas	88.33	80	-10

Arizona and New Mexico	86.64	101	17

Colorado and Wyoming	92.73	89	-4

Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Utah	95.25	83	-13

California	100.24	81	-20

Oregon and Washington	90.72	75	-18

Table 4-7.	Aggregate production (reported and modeled) for 2005-2007

Year	Reported Production

(million short tons)	Calculated Production

(million short tons)	%Δ

2005	111.84	112.54	0.63

2006	110.30	111.23	0.84

2007	108.17	101.95	-5.75

Conclusions

If any of the key input parameters, specifically those relating to production quantities and costs, are refined or otherwise modified or additional observed data becomes available, the calibration of the model should be repeated. Transportation matrix, modes, and cost of transportation also have significant impact on the behavior of production distribution across the districts and production prices. Therefore, if any further modifications or refinements are made to the transportation matrix, the model needs to be re-calibrated.

At the time of calibration of the current version of the model, production, import and price values for only 2005 to 2007 were available. As discussed above, when the new values become available, the model needs to be calibrated again. Calibration of the model should be repeated as soon as new information or new observed data become available. Due to practical limitations it is recommended that the calibration of the model be repeated every two years. Further, since the calibration data is available only for three years, equal weight was given to the parameters obtained for each year. Once larger data-set is available, a modified weighing system can be adopted to give highest weight to the most-recent year data.

References for Chapter 4

United States Geological Service. Mineral Yearbook 2008. Table 5.  HYPERLINK "http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/" http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/

United States Geological Service. Mineral Yearbook 2008. Table 3.  HYPERLINK "http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/" http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/

United States Geological Service. Mineral Yearbook 2008. Table 11.  HYPERLINK "http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/" http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/

Analysis and Results of the Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS

Affected Sources

EPA is finalizing amendments to the NESHAP for the Portland cement manufacturing industry and the NSPS for Portland cement plants.  The final amendments to the NESHAP add or revise, as applicable, emission limits for mercury (Hg), total hydrocarbons (THC), and particulate matter (PM) from non-hazardous waste (nhw) kilns located at major or area sources, and hydrochloric acid (HCl) from nhw kilns located at major sources.  The amendments to the NSPS add or revise, as applicable, emission limits for PM, NOx and SO2 for facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 16, 2008.

ISIS-cement was used to conduct an integrated engineering and economic analysis for the final Portland Cement NESHAP and final NSPS.  Figure 5-1 shows the cement facilities and the kilns modeled in ISIS for the final NESHAP and final NSPS analysis. Even though the Portland cement NESHAP affects only nhw kilns, in ISIS-cement all cement kilns projected to be in the U.S. in 2013 are modeled to meet the cement demand.

Figure 5-1 	Portland Cement Facilities and Kilns Modeled in ISIS-Cement

From the 108 Portland cement facilities modeled in ISIS-cement for the final NESHAP and final NSPS analysis, 97 facilities or 157 nhw kilns are projected to be subject to the final NESHAP.  From these 157 nhw kilns projected to be subject to the NESHAP, 16 kilns are projected to be subject to the limits for new sources while 137 kilns are projected to be subject to the limits for existing sources. Seven facilities or 7 kilns are projected to be subject to the final NSPS.

Emission Limits

Table 5-1 shows the emission limits for the final NESHAP analyzed in ISIS, while Table 5-2 shows the emission limits for the final NSPS. Emission limits in tables 5-1 and 5-2 are average annual emissions.  EPA’s analysis using ISIS-cement focused on the individual rules and also on the combination of the final NESHAP and the final NSPS. The limits used in the analysis were input as lbs/ton cement produced annually.

Table 5-1.  Final NESHAP Emission Limits

NESHAP Limits for ISIS'  Runs

Pollutant	Existing	New	Units

	Average	Average

	Hg	31.7	14	lb/MM ton clinker

	0.0000317	0.000014	lb/ton clinker

	0.000029164	0.00001288	lb/ton cement

THC	5	5	ppmv

	0.050856164	0.050856164	lb THC/ton clinker

	0.046787671	0.046787671	lb/ton cement

HCl	0.4	0.4	ppmv

	0.003378699	0.003378699	lb HCl/ton clinker

	0.003108403	0.003108403	lb/ton cement

PM	0.012	0.005	lb/ton clinker

	0.01104	0.0046	lb/ton cement

Table 5-2.  Final NSPS Emission Limits

NSPS Limits for ISIS' Runs

Pollutant	New	Units

	Limit 	Average

	NOx	1.5	1.5	lb/ton clinker

	1.38	1.38	lb/ton cement

SO2	0.4	0.4	lb/ton clinker

	0.368	0.368	lb/ton cement

Control Technologies

Kilns subject to the final NESHAP and/or final NSPS are expected to add one or more control devices to comply with the final emission limits.   Table 5-3 shows control technologies and control efficiencies used in the final NESHAP and final NSPS analysis. The cost of these control technologies can be found in the "Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts for Final Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS".  August 6, 2010.  The final NESHAP and final NSPS rules also include additional testing and monitoring requirements for affected sources.  In the final NESHAP, in addition to meeting the emission limits, each affected kiln will be required to install Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) to monitor Hg, THC and HCl, while bag leak detector (BLD) will be required to monitor performance of all baghouses (fabric filters). In the final NSPS, in addition to meeting the emission limits, each kiln affected will be required to install CEMS for NOx and SO2.  The cost of these devices can also be found in "Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts for Final Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS", August 6, 2010.

Table 5-3.  Control Technology and Control Efficiency Matrix by Pollutant

Control Technologies	Pollutants

	Hg	THC	HCl	PM	SO2	NOx

Limestone Wet Scrubbers (LWS)	80%

99%

90%

	Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) with polishing baghouse	90%	80%

99.9%

Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer (RTO)

98%

Dry Lime Injection (DLI)

	75%

70%

	Low NOx Burner (LNB) +  Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR)

65%

Baghouse with Membrane Bags (BHMB)

99.9%

Membrane Bags Retrofit (MBR)

99.9%

ACI + LWS	90%	80%	99%	99.9%	90%

	LWS + RTO	80%	98%	99%

90%

ISIS Runs and Results

EPA’s analysis focuses on the results of the final NESHAP and final NSPS. We also present additional information on different combinations of the regulatory programs to help stakeholders better understand the size and scope of each. The three policies analyzed are:

Final NSPS only,

Final NESHAP only, and

Final NSPS and NESHAP.

Because all existing sources under the NESHAP will be required to come into compliance in 2013, the analysis presented here reflects the impact of the final NESHAP and final NSPS in 2013.

As explained in Chapter 3, one of the key data inputs for the ISIS-cement model is the demand forecast for each demand center. For cement, the demand is a function of gross domestic product (GDP) growth, interest rates, special construction projects (e.g., highways), and public sector construction spending. In 2005, Portland cement demand reached a record high of 128 million metric tons. The economic distress in the US during 2008 and 2009 resulted in a decline in cement demand.  The demand for cement compared with 2005 levels declined from nearly 89% in 2007 to less than 60% in 2009 (PCA, 2009).  Per PCA, cement demand is not expected to reach past cyclical peak levels (2005) until 2015 (PCA, 2010).  Since multiple years were not modeled, the average demand for the years 2013 through 2018 of PCA’s 2009 Long-Term Cement Consumption Outlook (PCA, 2009) was used as the exogenous demand in 2013.  This average demand is expected to be more representative of what will be typical after implementation of the regulation.

On the domestic supply side,  ISIS uses the industry data for all the kilns operating in 2009 (see Figure 5-1) and optimizes the industry in 2013 taking into account retirements, replacements, and new kilns projected by PCA from 2010 to 2013.  For the policy scenarios analyzed here, ISIS simultaneously estimated 1) optimal industry operation to meet demand and emission reduction requirements; 2) the suite of control technologies needed to meet the emission limits; 3) the engineering cost of controls; and 4) the economic impacts of the policies.

In the analysis shown below, EPA assumed that all the projected new kilns shown in Figure 5-1 will be active in 2013. To accommodate for this assumption, in the NSPS policy run, ISIS required the 7 new kilns projected to be subject to the final NSPS to run in both the reference and policy case.  In the NSPS policy case these 7 kilns were required to meet the NSPS limits by installing controls.  In the NESHAP and the combination of NSPS and NESHAP, ISIS required the 16 new kilns projected to be subject to the NESHAP limits for new sources to run in both the reference and policy case.  In the NESHAP policy case these 16 kilns were required to meet the NESHAP limits for new sources by installing controls.  On the other hand, in the NSPS and NESHAP combination the 16 kilns projected to be subject to the NESHAP limits for new sources as well as the 7 kilns projected to be subject to the NSPS were required to meet both the NSPS and NESHAP limits for new sources by installing controls.

ISIS Results

Cement Demand

As mentioned in Chapter 3, in ISIS-cement the U.S. cement industry is organized in state-specific demand centers.  The model simulates each cement kiln’s ability to compete in each of the demand centers as a function of the kiln’s production cost and transportation cost associated with supplying to each demand center.  At the same time the cement demand at each demand center can be met by local production, foreign imports, or by inter-market trading (i.e., shipping from other demand center).

The exogenous cement demand used in ISIS for this analysis was the average demand for 2013 through 2018 or 123.6 million metric tons of cement.  Table 5-4 shows the impact of the two policies analyzed on the cement demand in 2013.  As shown in Table 5-4, in 2013 the US cement demand could drop 0.65% under the NSPS, 5.70% under the NESHAP, and 6.27 under the combination of the NSPS and NESHAP.

Table 5-4 Policy Impact on U.S. Cement Demand in 2013

Cement Demand (metric tons of cement)

Policy Run	Reference Case	Policy Case	Change in Demand	% Change

NSPS 	123,653,270	122,844,362	-808,907	-0.65

NESHAP 	123,653,270	116,608,341	-7,044,929	-5.70

NSPS and NESHAP	123,653,270	115,894,658	7,758,612	-6.27

Cement Production

Table 5-5 shows the impact of the policies analyzed on the US cement production in 2013.    As shown in Table 5-5, U.S. cement production could drop 1.4% under the NSPS, 9.60% under the NESHAP, and 10.62% under the combination of NSPS and NESHAP.

Table 5-5 Policy Impact on U.S. Cement Production

Cement Production (metric tons of cement)

Policy Run	Reference Case	Policy Case	Change in Production	% Change

NSPS 	94,036,939	92,680,715	-1,356,224	-1.4

NESHAP 	94,141,619	85,101,425	-9,044,929	-9.60

NSPS and NESHAP	94,141,619	84,145,488	-9,996,131	-10.62

Cement Imports

Table 5-6 shows the impact of the policies analyzed on US cement imports in 2013.  As shown in Table 5-6, U.S. cement imports could rise 1.84% under the NSPS, 6.76% under the NESHAP, and 7.58 under the combination of NSPS and NESHAP.

Table 5-6 Policy Impact on U.S. Cement Imports

Cement Imports (metric tons of cement)

Policy Run	Reference Case	Policy Case	Change in Imports	% Change

NSPS 	29,616,331	30,163,647	547,316	1.84

NESHAP 	29,511,650	31,506,916	1,995,266	6.76

NSPS and NESHAP	29,511,650	31,749,170	2,237,520	7.58

Cement Prices

Table 5-7 shows the estimated average national price in 2013 for Portland cement under the policies analyzed.  As shown in Table 5-7, cement prices may increase 0.74% under the NSPS, 6.83% under the NESHAP, and 7.58% under the combination of NSPS and NESHAP.

Table 5-7 Policy Impact on U.S. Cement Prices

Cement Price ($/metric ton of cement)

Policy Run	Reference Case	Policy Case	Change in Price	% Change

NSPS 	87.77	88.42	0.65	0.74

NESHAP 	84.81	90.60	5.79	6.83

NSPS and NESHAP	84.81	91.24	6.42	7.58

Control Technology Installation

Table 5-8 shows the projected control technology installation in 2013 for the policies analyzed.

Table 5-8 Control Technology Installation

Controls

Policy Run	LNB +

SNCR	LWS	ACI	LWS +

ACI	MBR	RTO	LWS +

RTO	DLI	BHMB

NSPS 	7	7	 -	 -	- 	 -	- 	- 	-

NESHAP 	0	30	42	29	6	15	6	1	2

NSPS and NESHAP	7	27	41	22	8	11	12	1	1

Table 5-9 shows control cost associated with the control installation shown in Table 5-8.  Table 5-9 also shows the monitoring cost associated with the three policy scenarios analyzed.

Table 5-9 Control Cost

Control Cost ($)

Policy Run	Control Cost	Monitoring	Total Cost

NSPS 	32,135,140	1,386,821	33,521,691

NESHAP 	333,536,975	17,236,198	350,773,173

NSPS and NESHAP	325,654,798	16,839,964	342,494,762

Cement Capacity

One important feature of the ISIS-cement model is that the cement capacity is dynamically optimized by endogenously installing new capacity, replacing existing capacity and retiring non-competitive existing capacity.  Table 5-10 shows the cement capacity in 2013 for the policies analyzed.

Table 5-10 Cement Capacity

Capacity (metric tons cement)

Policy Run	Reference Case	Policy Case	Capacity Change	% Change

NSPS 	94,036,939	92,680,715	-1,356,224	-1.4

NESHAP 	94,141,619	85,101,425	-9,044,929	-9.60

NSPS and NESHAP	94,141,619	84,145,488	-9,996,131	-10.62

With respect to the reference case in 2013 ISIS identified that 1.3 million metric tons of existing capacity may idle under the NSPS, 9.0 million metric tons of existing capacity may idle under NESHAP, while 9.9 million metric tons of existing capacity may idle under the combination of NSPS and NESHAP.

Table 5-11 shows the number of kilns active in each policy analyzed in ISIS.  A kiln that is active in ISIS-cement will run at 100% of its capacity after taking into account normal downtime days. A kiln is considered to be idling if it was producing cement in the reference case but is not in the policy case.  As shown in Table 5-11, 1 kiln may idle under the NSPS, 12 kilns may idle under the NESHAP, and 14 kilns may idle under the combination of NSPS and NESHAP. If kilns owners decide to run their kilns at a lower utilization rate a lower number of kilns will be expected to idle under each policy scenario.

Table 5-11 Kiln Population

Kilns

Policy Run	Reference Case	Policy Case	Kilns Idling	% Change

NSPS 	127	126	1	-0.78

NESHAP 	113	101	12	-11.88

NSPS and NESHAP	113	99	14	-12.38

Table 5-12 shows the number of cement facilities that may idle as result of the policies analyzed in ISIS.  The changes in cement capacity and kiln population may cause 4 facilities to idle under the NESHAP, and may cause 8 facilities to idle under the combination of NSPS and NESHAP.  A facility is considered idling if one or more kilns at the facility were producing cement in the reference case but they are not producing in the policy case.

Table 5-12 Number of Cement Facilities

Facilities

Policy Run	Reference Case	Policy Case	Facilities Idling	% Change

NSPS 	86	86	0	0.00

NESHAP 	81	77	4	-4.93

NSPS and NESHAP	81	73	8	-9.87

Employment Impacts

Table 5-13 shows the total number of employee hours for each policy analyzed.  The number of employee hours for each policy is a function of cement production.  In each policy analyzed, the number of employee hours is proportional to the cement production.  The difference between the number of hours in the reference and policy case in each scenario gives an estimate of the change in the number of employee hours due to the policy analyzed.  Using PCA’s labor use data, we can calculate the number of jobs that could potentially be affected by each policy under analysis.  Table 5-14 shows PCA’s labor use data for 2005 and 2008 (PCA 2005, 2008).  Table 5-15 shows the estimated impact on employment for each policy under analysis.

Table 5-13 Change in Employee Hours

Employee Hours

Policy Run	Reference Case	Policy Case	Difference 	% Change

NSPS 	24,586,999	24,385,731	-201,269	-0.82

NESHAP 	24,086,384	21,735,357	-2,351,111	-9.76

NSPS and NESHAP	24,086,384	21,484,727	-2,601,741	-10.80

Table 5-14 PCA’s Labor Data: 2005 and 2008

Year	Process	Labor hours: Direct	Number of Employees	Number of Direct Hours per Employee

2005	Wet Process	3,970,188	1,962	2,024

	Dry Process	35,448,534	16,562	2,140

	Total	39,418,722	18,524	2,128

	Average	19,709,361	9,262	2,082

2008	Wet Process	3,607,766	1,769	2,039

	Dry Process	34,767,447	16,504	2,107

	Total	38,375,213	18,273	2,100

	Average	19,187,607	9,137	2,073

Table 5-15 Employment Impacts

Employment Impacts

Policy Run	Change in Employee Hours	Change in Employment

NSPS	-201,269	94-97

NESHAP	-2,351,111	1,105-1,134

NSPS and NESHAP	-2,601,741	1,223-1,255

Total Social Cost

In ISIS, total social cost is the cost to comply with the policy under analysis.  This cost includes installation of controls and monitoring requirements as well as the cost to society due to the changes in supply, demand, employment and price effects.  Table 5-16 shows the change in surplus for each policy analyzed in ISIS.  As shown in Table 5-16 the surplus for the cement industry may fall by $95 million under the NSPS, $520 million under the NESHAP, while it may fall $385 million under the combination of NSPS and NESHAP.

Table 5-16 Total Social Cost

Surplus Loss (Million Dollars)

Policy Run	Reference Case	Policy Case	Change in Surplus	% Change

NSPS 	10,050	9,955	-95	-0.95

NESHAP 	9,229	8,808	-421	-4.56

NSPS and NESHAP	9,229	8,844	-385	-4.17

Emissions

Table 5-17 shows the estimated emission changes in 2013 for Hg, THC, PM, HCl, SO2 and NOx for each policy analyzed.

Table 5-17 Emissions

Emissions (tpy)

Policy Run	Pollutant	Reference Case	Policy Case	Change in Emissions Percent Change

NSPS	PM	7,645	7,561	83	1.09

	Hg	5.78	5.32	0.46	7.94

	THC	12,207	12,185	22	0.18

	HCl	4,611	3,925	686	14.88

	NOx	126,751	116,043	10,708	8.45

	SO2	122,825	114,481	8,344	6.79

NESHAP	PM	6,349	620	5,729	90.23

	Hg	7.25	1.24	6.01	82.91

	THC	11,915	1,106	10,809	90.72

	HCl	4,434	128	4,307	97.12

	NOx	123,372	109,214	14,159	11.48

	SO2	115,163	34,919	80,245	69.68

	NSPS and NESHAP	PM	6,349	622	5,727	90.20

	Hg	7.25	1.25	6.00	82.76

	THC	11,915	1,060	10,8545	91.10

	HCl	4,434	137	4,297	96.91

	NOx	123,372	96,154	27,218	22.06

	SO2	115,164	35,775	79,389	68.94

References for Chapter 5

EPA (2010). August 6, 2010. "Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts for Final Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS" Memorandum prepared for Keith Barnett by RTI. US Environmental Protection Agency.

PCA. December 2005  XE “Portland Cement Association. December 2005”  . U.S. and Canadian Labor-Energy Input Survey 2005. Skokie, IL: PCA’s Economic Research Department. Portland Cement Association

PCA. December 2008  XE “Portland Cement Association. December 2005”  . U.S. and Canadian Labor-Energy Input Survey 2008. Skokie, IL: PCA’s Economic Research Department. Portland Cement Association

PCA. 2009. Forecast Report: Long-Term Cement Consumption Outlook. By Ed Sullivan. October 28, 2009. Portland Cement Association

PCA. 2010. Forecast Report: Capacity Update. By Ed Sullivan. April 28, 2010. Portland Cement Association

Disclaimer

Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

 PLEASE NOTE: for the purposes of this document, short tons will be referred to simply as “tons” and represents 2000 lbs. A unit conversion table is provided in the front matter of this document.

 Small amounts of SO3 may be released in addition to bulk SO2 but the SO3 emissions are treated as SO2 for computational purposes. Small amounts of CO may be released in addition to bulk CO2 but CO emissions are treated as CO2 for computational purposes.

 Does not include 2 white cement kilns neither 2 cement kilns in Puerto Rico.

.

 PCA does not specify if “coke” is metallurgical coke or petroleum coke. Authors believe it is the latter.

-

G

L

«

\

Í

(

)

*

D

E

F

I

J

K

ÿࡵᔛ콨硓ᘀꝨ☈　⹊洀H渄H甄ĈᘑꝨ☈洀H渄H甄ĈᴀK

L

M

N

j

k

l

m

p

q

‡

ˆ

‰

£

¤

¥

¨

©

ª

«

¬

É

Ê

Ë

Ì

Ñ

Ò

í

î

ï

8

9

:

T

U

V

Y

Z

[

\

]

^

z

{

ᔛ콨硓ᘀꝨ☈　⹊洀H渄H甄ĈᘕꝨ☈䌀ᡊ洀H渄H甄Ĉ℀{

|

}

‚

ƒ

©

ª

«

Å

Æ

Ç

Ê

Ë

Ì

Í

Î

Ï

ë

ì

í

î

ó

ô

j¸

j;

 h

 h

h

h

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

hß&

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

hß&

hß&

hß&

瑹倌

kd

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

瑹倌

hß&

h

h

4

4

4

4

4

h¼

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

h¸

h

h

j˜þ

j

j

ć

!

)

*

-

*

+

1

3

`

a

b

c

k

p

x

Ê

×

ü

ý

ÿ

(*

+

1

c

Ê

C

d

k

C

D

W

X

Y

Z

a

b

k

m

q

s

kd

h

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

;

7

 h³

 h³

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

kd7

 h³

”ÿ 	•

”ÿ 	•

”ÿ 	•

”ÿ 	•

”ÿ 	•

 h³

hë

hë

hë

hë

‚

š

æ

kd

úø#

ú

úø#

ú

 h

 h

,

7

L

W

h

q

F

f

g

{

ƒ

…

ž

Ÿ

¡

¬

Í

Î

Ï

Ó

OÏ

ä

瑹⇹Ԁ

hd

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

¦

'Ï

¦

¦

¦

¦

hd

hr"

 h

h

h

 h

h

h

 h

h

h

 h

h

h

h

h

  h

 h

  h

h

 h

  h

 h

  h

 h

  h

 h

  h

h

 h

 h

h

h

 h

  h

 h

  h

 h

h:

h:

h:

h:

h:

yt:

€&š

yt:

耀騦

耀騦

耀騦

愀Ĥ摧睰!

愀Ĥ摧睰!

愀Ĥ摧睰!

愀Ĥ摧睰!

愀Ĥ摧睰!

h¡

愀Ĥ摧睰!

 h¡

h¡

 h

᷌

᷍

ᘑꝨ☈　ⵊ䌀ቊ䠀*ᔗ୨驪ᘀꝨ☈　ⵊ䌀ቊ䠀*䄀d reported values may be higher in certain markets.

 Under the NESHAP any source that commenced construction after May 6, 2009 is a new source.  Under the NSPS, any source constructed, reconstructed or modified after June 16, 2008 is a new source.

 Seven of the 16 new kilns projected to be subject to the NESHAP limits for new sources are also kilns projected to be subject to the NSPS.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1-2

  PAGE  1-16

  PAGE  2-29

  PAGE  3-14

  PAGE  3-19

  PAGE  4-11

 PAGE   5-10

ISIS Inputs: 2013

Total Cement Facilities = 108

Total Cement Kilns = 177

Total Cement Capacity = 127.6 Million metric tons

Non-hazardous Waste Facilities = 97

Total Non-hazardous Waste Kilns = 157

Total Cement Capacity = 115.2 Million metric tons

Hazardous Waste Facilities = 11

Total Kilns = 20

Total Cement Capacity = 12.4 Million metric tons

Existing Facilities in 2009 = 93

Existing Kilns = 148

Total Cement Capacity = 103.8 Million metric tons

Projected New Facilities in 2010-2012 = 4

Projected New Kilns = 9

Total Cement Capacity = 11.4 Million metric tons


Cooling Water Intake Structure ( CWIS) Information Data Required Rig Information Rig Name Noble Eddie Paul Rig Type Jackup Total Installed Power Generation Capacity 5,850 HP Number of Cooling Water Intake Structures ( CWISs) 4 Brief description of each CWIS ( e. g., sea chest, simple pipe) 2 Deep Well Towers 1 Sea Chest Rough dimensions of each CWIS and indicate whether onboard CWIS has an existing flange 6" Deep Well; Flanged at tower top 6" Sea Chest; No Flange Screen type ( e. g., strainer, wedge wire) with mesh size None Total Design Specifications for Daily Maximum Water Intake Volume of each CWIS 1,364,454 gals ( 34,287 bbls)

Total Daily Water Intake Volume of each CWIS ( Set up/ Drilling) 1,364,454 gals ( 34,287 bbls)

Design Specs for Through Screen Velocity of each CWIS ( i. e., Q= V* A) ( Set up/ Drilling) Deep Well = 1.0 ft. per second Sea Chest = 6.7 ft. per second List of Purposes of Cooling Water Intakes ( e. g., cool crude oil, produced water, power generators, drill pipe brakes) Brake Water Cooling List of Purposes of Non cooling Water Intakes ( e. g., fire water, hotel loads) Fire pump, Sanitary, Watermakers Total Volume of Water Intake for Ballasting, Duration of the Ballast intake, and the Through Screen Velocity of the Ballast intake 1,789,032 gal ( 42,596 bbls) Ballast Water ( preload) on board approx. 6 hours. Thru screen velocity = 1.0 fps Mitigation Measures for reducing Exotic Species Migration through Ballast water Ballast water not transported. It is taken on and dumped from the same location. Mitigation Measures for reducing Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms, as well as Bio fouling Prevention Measures Cover over sea chest, cathodic protection, basket strainer.

Is the Rig equipped with a Radiator Cooling System for the Main Engines? Yes


[Federal Register: September 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 183)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53928-53933]
[DOCID:fr21se07-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29089; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-215-AD;
Amendment 39-15197; AD 2007-18-52]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, -900, and -900ER Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document publishes in the Federal Register an amendment

adopting airworthiness directive (AD) 2007-18-52 that was sent
previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of Boeing Model 737-
600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes by individual
notices. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections of the slat
track downstop assemblies to verify that proper hardware is installed,
one-time torquing of the nut and bolt, and corrective actions if
necessary. This AD is prompted by reports of parts coming off the main
slat track downstop assemblies. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct loose or missing parts from the main slat track downstop
assemblies, which could result in a fuel leak and consequent fire.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 26, 2007 to all persons
except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by
emergency AD 2007-18-52, issued August 28, 2007, which contained the
requirements of this amendment.
    We must receive comments on this AD by November 20, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this AD.
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow

the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6440; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 28, 2007, we issued emergency AD
2007-18-52, which applies to all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. That emergency AD superseded
emergency AD 2007-18-51, described below.

Background

    On August 25, 2007, we issued emergency AD 2007-18-51 for all
Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series
airplanes. That AD requires repetitive detailed inspections of the main
slat track downstop assemblies to verify that proper hardware is
installed, one-time torquing of the nut and bolt, and corrective
actions if necessary. Corrective actions include installing a new or
serviceable part; and doing a detailed inspection of the inside of the
slat can for foreign object debris (FOD) and damage, and removing any
FOD and repairing damage that is found.
    That AD resulted from reports of parts of the main slat track
downstop assembly coming off the main slat track. In one case, a nut
fell into the slat track housing (referred to as ``slat can'') and,
during a subsequent slat retraction, the track made contact with the
nut, pushing it into the wall of the can and puncturing it. That
operator reported finding fuel leaking from the drain hole in the slat
track housing at the No. 5 slat track position. In another case, an
initial investigation revealed that following retraction of the slats
after landing on a Model 737-800 airplane, loose parts of the main slat
track downstop assembly punctured the slat can, which resulted in a
fuel leak and a fire that ultimately destroyed the airplane. We issued
that AD to detect and correct loose or missing parts from the main slat
track downstop assemblies, which could result in a fuel leak and
consequent fire.

Actions Since Issuance of Emergency AD 2007-18-51

    Since the issuance of emergency AD 2007-18-51, we have received
additional reports of parts coming off the main slat track downstop
assemblies. In these cases, the parts were found in the bottom of the
slat track housing (``slat can''). Additionally, in one case, the slat
can was damaged.
    Based on this new information, we find that the 24-day compliance
time specified in emergency AD 2007-18-51 for accomplishing the
detailed inspection of each main slat track downstop assembly to verify
proper installation of the slat track hardware is not adequate to
address the unsafe condition. We have determined that the appropriate
compliance time for this inspection is 10 days after receipt of
emergency AD 2007-18-52. In addition, we have determined that an
inspection using borescope techniques in lieu of a detailed inspection
is acceptable.
    Further, we have determined that by performing the initial detailed
or borescope inspection within the reduced compliance time of 10 days,
the compliance time for torquing the nut and bolt can remain at 24 days
after receipt of emergency AD 2007-18-51.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop
on other airplanes of the same type design, we issued emergency AD
2007-18-52 to detect and correct loose or missing parts from the main
slat track downstop assemblies, which could result in a fuel leak and
consequent fire.
    This AD supersedes emergency AD 2007-18-51, which required
repetitive detailed inspections of the main slat track downstop
assemblies to verify that proper hardware is installed, one-time
torquing of the nut and bolt, and corrective actions if necessary.
Corrective actions include installing a new or serviceable part; and
doing a detailed inspection of the inside of the slat can for foreign
object debris (FOD) and damage, and removing any FOD and repairing
damage that is found.
    This AD continues to require the same actions as emergency AD 2007-
18-51, but reduces the compliance time for the initial detailed
inspection of each main slat track downstop assembly to verify proper
installation of the slat track hardware from 24 days after receipt of
emergency AD 2007-18-51 to 10 days after receipt of this new AD. This
AD also provides an additional inspection method (using borescope
techniques) in lieu of the detailed inspection.

Clarification of Determining Proper Installation of Hardware

    Operators should note that it was not our intent that the hardware
for the main slat track downstop assemblies be disassembled to
determine proper installation of the sleeve. Proper installation of the
sleeve need not be confirmed, and the stop location part may be
installed on either the inboard or the outboard side of the slat track.
Disassembling the parts provides additional opportunities for
introducing the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Therefore, we
have revised paragraph (f) of this AD accordingly.

Clarification of Reference to Boeing Multi Operator Message

    Paragraph (f)(1) of emergency AD 2007-18-51 identified ``Boeing
Correspondence (Multi Operator Message) Service Request ID 1-523812011,
issued August 25, 2007,'' as one approved method for verifying proper
installation; installing a new or serviceable part; and inspecting for

damage and FOD, and removing FOD and repairing damage. This AD
identifies that document correctly as ``Boeing Multi Operator Message
Number 1-523812011-1, issued August 25, 2007.''
    Since the issuance of emergency AD 2007-18-51, Boeing has issued
Boeing Multi Operator Message Number 1-527463441-1, issued August 28,
2007. We have referenced that document in this AD as an additional
approved method for doing the specified actions.
    We found that immediate corrective action was required; therefore,
notice and opportunity for prior public comment thereon were
impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause
existed to make the AD effective immediately by individual notices
issued on August 28, 2007, to all known U.S. owners and operators of
Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series
airplanes. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published
in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all
persons.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. If final action is later
identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect
flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for
public comment; however, we invite you to submit any relevant written
data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an
address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-
29089, Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-215-AD,'' at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD that
might suggest a need to modify it.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will

also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of that Web
site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets,
including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed
the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
, or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is located on the
ground level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after the Docket Management System receives them.

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.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency
regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe
condition in aircraft, and that it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further
that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If this
emergency regulation is later deemed significant under DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures, we will prepare a final regulatory evaluation
and place it in the AD Docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location
to examine the regulatory evaluation, if filed.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2007-18-52 Boeing: Amendment 39-15197. Docket No. FAA-2007-29089;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-215-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective September 26, 2007, to all persons
except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by
emergency AD 2007-18-52, issued on August 28, 2007, which contained
the requirements of this amendment.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes emergency AD 2007-18-51, issued August
25, 2007.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from additional reports of parts coming off
the main slat track downstop assemblies. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct loose or missing parts from the main slat track
downstop assemblies, which could result in a fuel leak and
consequent fire.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

    Note 1: Paragraph (f) of this AD merely restates the
requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of AD 2007-18-51. As allowed by the
phrase, ``unless the actions have already been done,'' if the
applicable initial inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of AD
2007-18-51 have already been done, this AD does not require that
those inspections be repeated until the repetitive interval of 3,000
flight cycles.

Repetitive Detailed Inspections: New Initial Compliance Time

    (f) Within 10 days after the effective date of this AD: Do a
detailed inspection or a borescope inspection of each main slat
track downstop assembly to verify proper installation of the slat
track hardware (i.e., the bolt, washers, downstops, stop location,
and nut shown in Figure 1 of Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-57-084-B,
dated July 10, 2007, and in this AD). Proper installation of the
sleeve need not be confirmed, and the stop location part may be
installed on either the inboard or the outboard side of the slat
track. If any part is missing or is installed improperly, before
further flight, install a new or serviceable part using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(h) of this AD; and do a detailed inspection of the inside of the
slat can for foreign object debris (FOD) and damage. Before further
flight, remove any FOD found and repair any damage found using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD. Using Boeing Multi Operator Message Number
1-523812011-1, issued August 25, 2007; or 1-527463441-1, issued
August 28, 2007; is one approved method for verifying proper
installation; installing a new or serviceable part; and inspecting
for damage and FOD, and removing FOD and repairing damage. Repeat
the actions required by paragraph (f) of this AD thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles.

    Note 2: Paragraph (g) of this AD merely restates the
requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of AD 2007-18-51. As allowed by the
phrase, ``unless the actions have already been done,'' if the torque
application required by paragraph (f)(2) of AD 2007-18-51 has
already been done, this AD does not require that the torque
application be repeated.

One-Time Torquing

    (g) Within 24 days after receipt of AD 2007-18-51: Apply a
torque between 50 to 80 inch-pounds to the nut. The bolt head must
be held with the torque applied to the nut.

    Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21SE07.042

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2007-18-51
are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 10, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-18436 Filed 9-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 41 (Friday, March 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6962-6965]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03641]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0949; Product Identifier 2018-NE-20-AD; Amendment
39-19484; AD 2018-22-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A.,
Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Safran Helicopter Engines), ASTAZOU
XIV B and H model engines with certain 3rd-stage turbine wheels
installed. This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections of the
3rd-stage turbine wheels. This AD was prompted by a report that six
3rd-stage turbine wheels were returned to service after a repair that
could result in exceedance of the allowable vibration threshold during
operation. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 18, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 18,
2019.
    We must receive comments on this AD by April 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For Safran Helicopter Engines service information identified in
this final rule, contact Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., 40220 Tarnos,
France; phone: +33 5 59 74 45 15; internet address: https://www.safran-helicopter-engines.com/services/technical-assistance. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0949.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://
www.regulations

.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0949; or in
person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final
rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for Docket Operations (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Caufield, Aerospace Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
781-238-7146; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued EASA AD 2018-0085, dated April 13, 2018 (referred to after this
as ``the MCAI''), to address an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    Safran Helicopter Engines reported that an identified batch of
stage 3 turbine wheels were released to service after repair in
spite of the fact that the natural frequency of the turbine blades
installed on those wheels did not comply with the acceptance
criteria. Excessive turbine blade vibration may lead to progressive
crack initiation on the rear face of the affected turbine wheel.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
rupture of a turbine blade and its associated piece of rim, possibly
resulting in an un-commanded engine in-flight shut-down and/or
release of high energy debris, with consequent damage to, and/or
reduced control of, the helicopter.
    To address this potentially unsafe condition, Safran Helicopter
Engines issued the MSB to provide inspections instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive
inspections of the affected parts and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0949.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Safran Helicopter Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin
(MSB) 283 72 0813, Version A, dated February 26, 2018. The MSB
describes procedures for inspecting the rear face of the 3rd-stage
turbine wheel. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by EASA, and is approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement
with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition
described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of
the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections of 3rd-stage
turbine wheels.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, we find good
cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
unnecessary. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that
good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30
days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2018-
0949 and Product Identifier 2018-NE-20-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
final rule because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this final rule.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects zero engines installed on
helicopters of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect the 3rd-stage turbine wheel...  5 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $425              $0
                                         hour = $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace the 3rd-stage turbine wheel...........  8 work-hours x $85 per hour =           $217,131        $217,811
                                                 $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2018-22-11 Safran Helicopter Engines (Type Certificate previously
held by Turbomeca, S.A.): Amendment 39-19484; Docket No. FAA-2018-
0949; Product Identifier 2018-NE-20-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 18, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Safran
Helicopter Engines), ASTAZOU XIV B and H model engines with the 3rd-
stage turbine wheels specified in Figure 1 to paragraph (c) of this
AD installed.

     Figure 1 to Paragraph (c) of This AD--3rd-Stage Turbine Wheels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Part Nos.                           Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 265 25 706 0......................  AD78691AD, AD78703AD, AD93845AD,
                                       CC52860, RD39596
0 265 25 705 0......................  L232AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that six 3rd-stage turbine
wheels were returned to service after a repair that could result in
exceedance of the allowable vibration threshold during operation. We
are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 3rd-stage turbine
wheel. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss
of engine power and reduced control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Action

    (1) Perform an inspection of the 3rd-stage turbine wheel as
follows:
    (i) Before exceeding 400 engine cycles since the last engine
overhaul, or within 50 engine start stop cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, inspect the rear face of
each affected 3rd-stage turbine wheel in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 2.4.2 and 2.4.3, in Safran
Helicopter Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 283 72 0813,
Version A, dated February 26, 2018.
    (ii) After that, repeat the inspection required by paragraph
(g)(1)(i) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 400 engine cycles
since the last inspection.
    (iii) A one-time, non-cumulative tolerance of 50 engine cycles
may be applied to the repetitive inspection interval required by
paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (2) If a crack indication is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, remove the engine from
service and repair the 3rd-stage turbine wheel in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 4.3, in Safran Helicopter
Engines MSB 283 72 0813, Version A, dated February 26, 2018.

(h) Terminating Action

    A repair of the 3rd-stage turbine wheel in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 4.3, in Safran Helicopter
Engines MSB 283 72 0813, Version A, dated February 26, 2018,
constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD for
that engine.

(i) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, calculate ``non-cumulative
tolerance'' by adding 50 engine cycles to the inspection interval of
400 engine cycles since the last inspection. For example, you may
add 50 additional engines cycles to the 400 cycles since last
inspection requirement to obtain an inspection interval of 450
engine cycles. Once this non-cumulative tolerance has been applied,
all repetitive inspection intervals are required within 400 engine
cycles of the previous inspection.

(j) No Reporting Requirement

    No reporting requirement contained within the MSB referenced in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD are required by this AD.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. You may email your
request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Barbara
Caufield, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2018-0085, dated April 13, 2018, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2018-0949.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Safran Helicopter Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin 283 72
0813, Version A, dated February 26, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Safran Helicopter Engines service information identified
in this AD, contact Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A., 40220 Tarnos,
France; phone: +33 5 59 74 45 15; internet address: https://www.safran-helicopter-engines.com/services/technical-assistance.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine &
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives .gov/federal-
register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 21, 2019.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-03641 Filed 2-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Kerry Leifer<PHONE_NUMBER>

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

Cytec Industries Inc.

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from Cytec Industries Inc.,  5 Garret Mountain Plaza Woodland Park, NJ 07424 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.

	to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for

	Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, C-C9-11-isoalkyl esters, C10-rich, disodium salts CAS. No. 815583-91-6  under 40 CFR §180.910 when used as an inert ingredient (surfactant) not to exceed 20% in pesticide formulations applied pre-and post -harvest to all raw agricultural commodities.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. [NA-Remove. No specific plant metabolism data is available, nor is it required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

	2. Analytical method. [NA-Remove. An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [NA-Remove. Information regarding the nature and magnitude of chemical residues resulting from the use of this inert ingredient is not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

B. Toxicological Profile
 EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers including infants and children.

	1. Acute toxicity.  Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, C-C9-11-isoalkyl esters, C10-rich, disodium salts has low to very low acute oral toxicity and dermal toxicity.  The compound is of low concern for skin irritation but a moderate concern for eye irritation.  In addition, no evidence of dermal irritation or dermal sensitization was observed in a clinical study.

	2. Genotoxicty. Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, C-C9-11-isoalkyl esters, C10-rich, disodium salts was negative in tests for mutagenicity in bacteria.  In addition, the compound lacks concern for this endpoint based on structural alerts.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, C-C9-11-isoalkyl esters, C10-rich, disodium salts has been examined in a multigenerational study which included a teratology component.  No teratogenic effects were observed at either the 1% or 4% feeding levels. The NOAEL for reproductive and offspring toxicity was 1% (~ 750 mg/kg bw/day).  Effects observed included lack of consecutive pregnancies, decreased liveborn per litter, fertility index, viability index and lactation index and decreased weight gain in pups (average weaning weight of pups).  In addition, in animals examined during gestation there were fewer viable embryos/litter and fewer variable fetuses per litter.  None of the skeletal or soft tissue anomalies observed in the fetal examinations were different between treatment and control groups.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Following subchronic treatment to rats, the only finding considered treatment related was decrease body weight gain at 4% feed concentration; as such the NOEL was 1%, equivalent to an intake of 0.77 g/kg bw/day for male rats and 0.90 g/kg bw/day for female rats.  In a 90 day oral subchronic study in dogs, the key findings in high dosed animals were decreased feed consumption, feed efficiency and weight loss.  In addition, testes weight (absolute and body weight relative) was significantly decreased in high dosed males.  Necropsy revealed testicular atrophy was in one mid-dose and three high-dose dogs and light yellow discoloration and hepatic fatty infiltration was observed in high dose animals.  The NOEL from this study is considered 0.12% for male dogs and 0.5% for females, corresponding to intakes of 0.03 g/kg bw/day and 0.14 g/kg bw/day for male and female dogs, respectively.

	5. Chronic toxicity. There is no evidence that the butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, C-C9-11-isoalkyl esters, C10-rich, disodium salts is carcinogenic. The compound was negative is the bacterial reverse mutation assay and does not contain structural alerts for genotoxicity via DNA reactivity (covalent binding) or non-genotoxic mechanisms; as such, it would not be predicted to be a concern for carcinogenicity.  In addition, similar structures evaluated by EPA do not indicate a concern for genotoxicity or carcinogenicity.

	6. Animal metabolism. The compound is predicted to be bioavailable and data on similar compounds with ester linked sulfosuccinates have been reviewed by EPA and would be expected to share similar metabolism.  Moreover, the chemical is expected to be readily hydrolyzed by carboxylesterases resulting in the corresponding alcohol and the sulfosuccinic acid.  The sulfosuccinic acid would be conjugated with glucuronic acid and/or excreted via the urine.  The fatty alcohol would be expected to be metabolism via normal metabolic pathways (oxidative metabolism).

	7. Metabolite toxicology. No concern is noted for the metabolites.  Following hydrolysis, an alcohol would be released which would be subjected to further oxidative metabolism and consumed per normal biochemical processes. The sulfosuccinate moiety is not concerning, based on read across to other additives sharing this same structure via an ester linkage which are currently considered safe for use in food (dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate and sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates).

	8. Endocrine disruption. No data were identified addressing the endpoint of endocrine disruption; however, based on the structure, no concern is noted for binding to the estrogen receptor.  The effects of the test compound on the testes observed in the subchronic dog study are uncertain as collaborating effects on the testes were not observed in the rat.  Nonetheless, the rat reproductive study addresses any functional impairment; the NOEL of this study was 1% as opposed the dog study with a NOEL of 0.12%.

C. Aggregate Exposure

      1. Dietary exposure. The exposures numbers used to calculate the %cPAD are taken from the EPA review of similar surfactants, the Alkyl Alcohol Alkoxylates (AAA), which have similar use patterns to those covered in this petition.
Exposure (mg/kg/day)
                       100% Crop Treated, 10% Surfactant
                                cPAD 0.30 %cPAD
General U.S. Population
                                   0.038302
                                      13
Infants (< 1 year old)
                                   0.079416
                                      26
Children 1-2 years old
                                   0.124801
                                      42
Children 3-5 years old
                                   0.092392
                                      31
Children 6-12 years old
                                   0.051062
                                      17
Youth 13-19 years old
                                   0.028824
                                      10
Adults 20-49 years old
                                   0.028880
                                      10
Adults 50+ years old
                                   0.030415
                                      10
Females 13-49 years old
                                   0.029078
                                      10

	i. Food. The dietary exposure above is the result of modeling to represent residues on food with 100% crop treated with a maximum concentration of 10% surfactant in the formulation.  This is a worst case scenario, since it is expected that these materials will be used at a maximum percent crop treated of 1%.

	ii. Drinking water. In their review of similar surfactants, the Alkyl Alcohol Alkoxylates, EPA modeled expected drinking water concentrations and considered that the maximum concentration would be 100 parts per billion.  This result is included in the exposure estimates in the dietary exposure table.
 	2. Non-dietary exposure. In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses). Because this petition is for use in pesticide formulations pre- and post-harvest to crops, the only expected exposure will be dietary.

D. Cumulative Effects

	We have not found a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to the butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, C-C9-11-isoalkyl esters, C10-rich, disodium salts and any other substances. Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, C-C9-11-isoalkyl esters, C10-rich, disodium salts may metabolize to Alkyl Alcohol Alkoxylates but with respect to this petition, the exposures to both materials are considered since there is an assumption that 100% of the crops are treated.

E. Safety Determination

      1. U.S. population. Based on these risk assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues of Disodium (C10-rich C9-11-isoalkyl) sulfosuccinate.

	2. Infants and children. Based on these risk assessments there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues of butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, C-C9-11-isoalkyl esters, C10-rich, disodium salts.

F. International Tolerances

	Cytec Industries Inc. is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for the butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, C-C9-11-isoalkyl esters, C10-rich, disodium salts nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels been established for any food crops at this time.

4818-2384-8477, v.  2


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47315-47316]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18782]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-2043-000]

South Jersey Energy ISO4, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of South Jersey Energy ISO4, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and

assumptions of liability is August 19, 2013.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 30, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-18782 Filed 8-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P